Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PORTSLADE AND SOUTHWICK OUTFALL SEWERAGE BOARD BILL

WHITSTABLE HARBOUR BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

WORKINGTON HARBOUR AND DOCK (TRANSFER) BILL

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 27th June.

BAIRD TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

KILMARNOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

PETITION

Heavy Wine (Customs Duty)

Sir A. Bossom: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a Petition on behalf of 98 British residents in Oporto, Portugal, referring to the great decline in the consumption of port wine in Great Britain as against the pre-war period and pointing out that this is most discouraging to the British port-wine producing firms in Portugal with an invested capital of over £12 million and is most discouraging to an increase in the reciprocal trade with Portugal.
The Petition concludes:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that urgent consideration should be given to an early and substantial reduction in. the British Customs Duty on heavy wine in general and

on port wine in particular so that it would be restored to its proper pre-war relationship with.the rate of duty on light wines.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
I beg you, Mr. Speaker, to instruct the Clerk of the House to read this Petition to the House.

THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE read the Petition, which was as follows:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.

The Humble Petition of British subjects resident in Oporto, Portugal.
Sheweth,
That the decline in the consumption of Port Wine in Great Britain as against the pre-war period is a cause of deep concern to all persons interested in the wellbeing of firms of British origin long established in Portugal and engaged in the production and shipping of Port Wine.
That in their opinion the major cause of this decline in consumption from over 4 million gallons a year to about 1½ million gallons a year is mainly due to the increase of the British Customs Duty on Port Wine from 8s. a gallon pre-war to 50s. a gallon today—an increase of not less than 525% and an increase very much greater over the same period than on Light Wines (127%) or on Spirits (only 184%).
That this increase of duty, particularly in relation to that on other classes of Wines and Spirits imported into Great Britain, is unfair and penal so far as the Port Wine Trade is concerned and has had the effect of pricing Port Wine to a very large extent out of the British Market and particularity out of the valuable public house market where some 90% of Port Wine imported into Great Britain pre-war was beneficially enjoyed by millions of working-class men and women.
That it is most discouraging for British Port Wine producing firms in Portugal with invested capital of over £12 millions, to find a product so carefully developed by themselves and their ancestors for many decades past to meet the exacting standards set by consumers in Great Britain now deprived of this most important market by a penally high customs duty, with the result that many of them have already been priced out of business.
Wherefore your Petitioners Pray that urgent consideration should be given to an early and substantial reduction in the British Customs Duty on Heavy Wine in general and on Port Wine in particular so that it would be restored to its proper pre-war relationship with the rate of duty on Light Wines.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever Pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I and, I feel, other hon. Members would like guidance on this matter. Is this not an abuse of the rights of Members in presenting Petitions? Should not a distinction be drawn between a Petition of this character, which represents a limited sectional interest, and Petitions presented on behalf of a very large number of persons in the country? Also, would it not be appropriate that an hon. Member in presenting a Petition of this rather special character should declare his interest?

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could not some arrangement be made for Petitions not to be presented on days when Questions are set down for the Prime Minister? Today we have twenty Questions to the Prime Minister, very important ones, and probably none of them will be reached.

Mr. Speaker: With regard to the question of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I fear that I have no power in the matter to prevent a Petition, which is in proper form according to the practice of the House, from being presented by an hon. Member.
In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I have previously expressed the hope that hon. Members presenting Petitions will not insist on their undoubted right to have the Petition read, because all that time comes off Questions. I can only express a desire and a hope. I am powerless to do more.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Agricultural Lettings

Mr. du Cann: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, relating to the protection of sitting tenants of agricultural land are now resulting in a shortage of farms to rent, which bears hardly upon young farmers in particular; and how he proposes to remedy the situation.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I have received representations to this effect and am taking them into account with other factors in the discussions that are taking place with the organisations concerned. These discussions are not concluded, and I am not in a position to make a statement on their outcome.

Mr. du Cann: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the present rather stagnant condition with regard to agricultural lettings indicates clearly the need for reforms giving safeguards for sitting tenants? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that he will have the good will of everybody in his efforts to find a solution to this very difficult matter?

Mr. Amory: Yes, I rather agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I am anxious if I can to get agreement on the improvements that we can make in that direction. I think we must remember that reasonable security of tenure is a prerequisite for efficient production, and I think also that the strong demand for farms at present is perhaps one indication that agriculture is in a sound condition.

Mr. T. Williams: While agreeing with the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, may I ask, if county agricultural executive committees are doing their duty under Part II of the 1947 Act, what would be the point or the justice in dispossessing a good farmer, who is known, and replacing him by an unknown farmer?

Mr. Amory: I should certainly never be in favour of dispossessing a good farmer—very much to the contrary; but this question is not directly concerned with Part II of the Agriculture Act so much as with the question of security of tenure which is dealt with under the Agricultural Holdings Act.

Export of Live Cattle

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the action being taken to carry out the recommendations of the Balfour Committee on the handling of cattle exported to the Continent.

Mr. Amory: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I propose to ensure that cows heavily in milk should not be exported for slaughter; that lairages at the ports should be divided and the animals supervised by experienced persons; and that water troughs, hay racks, fodder and detention pens should be provided. We also agree that approved detention premises should be permanent and covered and should normally be within the dock or airport area or adjacent to it. We shall provide that cattle should be fed as well as watered on lengthy internal rail journeys.
As regards the recommendation that vessels should not sail if winds of force 6 or over are forecast, we have decided that it would be unwise to fetter the discretion of the master of the vessel, and we propose to prohibit the carriage of cattle if the master has reason to expect adverse weather.
The suggestions that cattle found unfit for shipment should be sent to the nearest slaughterhouse and that a minimum size might be prescribed for vessels engaged in the trade raise difficulties that require further study. We have come to the conclusion that it would not be in the interests of the animals to relax the rule requiring cattle to be tied while on board ship.
Discussions with the foreign Governments concerned with a view to making satisfactory arrangements for the treatment of British cattle are continuing, and I hope to make a statement about this immediately after the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Hurd: As there is still some misunderstanding and anxiety in the public mind about this whole matter of the export of cattle to the Continent, will my right hon. Friend make clear that he accepts fully the findings of the Balfour Committee and that he is doing his utmost to press ahead with effective measures to carry out the Committee's recommendations?

Mr. Amory: Yes, I will gladly do that. I should like to confirm that we are in entire sympathy with the objects of the recommendations of the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Balfour of Burleigh. We are seeking most actively for ways of carrying out those recommendations. There is only one item of importance on which there is any difficulty—

that is the method of ensuring that cattle shall receive satisfactory treatment on the other side of the water, and that we are most actively following up.

Mr. Mikardo: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile all that he has just said with the fact that he has rejected the principal recommendation of the Balfour Committee, which is to limit the export of cattle to small countries'? Does he realise that people in transit centres at Reading and elsewhere, who have seen with their own eyes evidence of hardship and suffering, have been appalled by the additional evidence of hardship and suffering brought forward by the Committee and cannot understand why the Government either reject the Committee's recommendations in some cases or are very half-hearted about doing anything about the rest?

Mr. Amory: I think that if the hon. Gentleman reads what I said this afternoon he will conclude that we are far from half-hearted about these recommendations. We have not rejected the object of that recommendation; it is only the method about which we have doubt. That is the method suggested for limiting the journeys to small countries. We are in sympathy with the object of preventing long journeys on the Continent under unsatisfactory conditions.

Annual Reports

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will present annually to Parliament a report of his Department, similar to that presented annually by the Secretary of State for Scotland, entitled Agriculture in Scotland.

Mr. Amory: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his suggestion. I shall give it careful consideration and will write to him as soon as I can.

Mr. Champion: I am obliged.

Animal Feedingstuffs

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking in view of the increase of £2,200,000 in the cost of animal feedingstuffs imported from dollar sources for the first four months of this year.

Mr. Amory: The Government are encouraging the replacement of imported


feedingstuffs by home production of feed grains and the more efficient production and utilisation of grass; and, so far as imports are required, are enabling them to be obtained from the cheapest source.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a serious drain on our dollar resources and is a retreat from the endeavours that we have been carrying out to be less reliant on imports? Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss this matter with the trade to see whether we can be more effective in limiting imports of feedingstuffs from dollar sources?

Mr. Amory: We are always in close touch with the trade in these matters. The level of imports during the first four months of this year was due very largely to the temporarily higher freight rates and also to forward buying last autumn, but I think the proof that our policies are working is that the total volume of our home-grown feeding grains has risen steadily over the past three years.

Poultry Diseases

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated annual loss caused by poultry diseases.

Mr. Amory: I regret that sufficient information is not available for a satisfactory estimate to be given.

Mr. Willey: Is the Minister aware that the estimate given by some authorities is as high as £20 million a year? In view of this, does he not think it is necessary to devote much more money and effort to research in this direction?

Mr. Amory: I am aware of the estimate to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. As regards expenditure on research, it is not only a question of money but a question of there being a sufficient supply of qualified people willing to devote themselves to that research. I can assure him that we have not shown ourselves niggardly, and do not intend to, as to the amount of money devoted to agricultural research.

Eggs

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the average weekly consumption of fresh eggs

per head of population; and what increase would have been required to absorb the surplus of eggs which have been exported this year.

Mr. Amory: The weekly consumption of shell eggs is estimated at just over four per head of the population. An increase in consumption of little more than 1 per cent. would have been sufficient to absorb the quantities of eggs exported in the first four months of 1957.

Mr. Hill: In view of the fact that consumption in America is considerably higher than it is in this country, and that consumption seems to increase very slowly in response to lowered prices, would my right hon. Friend impress upon the new Egg Marketing Board the importance of stimulating sales of fresh eggs not only for immediate consumption but also for preserving at a time when they are cheap against the months when they are dear?

Mr. Amory: I assure my hon. Friend that the British Egg Marketing Board is very alive to the necessity of stimulating the consumption of eggs at reasonable prices, and I am convinced it will devote its attention to that. It would have needed the consumption of only one more egg per head of the population during the first four months for there to have been no surplus. I urge hon. Gentlemen to see what they can do.

Mr. Moyle: Will the Minister consider what steps his Department can take in conjunction with the Ministry of Education to increase the consumption of eggs by our schools population through the school meals service?

Mr. Amory: Yes. I know that my noble Friend the Minister of Education has called the attention of local authorities, through his circulars, to the low prices of eggs that were available a month or two ago and the reasonable prices at which they are available today.

Mrs. Mann: If the Minister allowed his thoughts to go along the lines of a General Election, might we not get rid of a good many eggs?

Mr. Amory: I shall be thinking about that in two or three years' time.

Bread Prices (Scotland)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the recent reduction in the price of bread has not been passed on to consumers in Scotland; and, in view of this, if he will reintroduce price control.

Mr. Amory: Complete uniformity is not to be expected under a freely competitive system. Scottish bakers, I understand, mainly use a flour of stronger grist than in England. The plant bakery prices are at present, I believe, about the same in both countries. I can see no justification, therefore, for the reintroduction of price control.

Mrs. Mann: Leaving aside price control, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increases went on simultaneously but the decrease applied to England only? Would he make further inquiries as to why Scotland, which had the increase with England, cannot have the decrease also with England?

Mr. Amory: It is very difficult to compare the prices because, in the case of small bakers, they vary considerably from place to place and from moment to moment. As regards the plant bakeries, I understand that the prices in Scotland did not go up quite as high as they did in England but that now the price in both countries is just about the same.

Marketing Boards (Welsh Members)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) why Wales was permitted no representative to sit with the four Ulster representatives from Northern Ireland and the two Scottish members on the Egg Marketing Board; and if he will now take steps to include members from Wales;
(2) if he will now appoint a Welsh member or members to the Wool Marketing Board, so that the Board may be representative of all parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Amory: The constitution of these marketing boards is laid down in the respective schemes, which were approved by Parliament. In each case there is one member elected by Welsh producers as provided for in the schemes. It would be for the Boards themselves to promote

draft amendments to their schemes if they considered any change was desirable as regards the representation of Welsh producers.

Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that Wales is so poorly represented on these boards has been commented on in many different quarters in the Principality?

Mr. Amory: I think we can leave it to the Welshmen to look after their interests and see that the initiative is taken if they feel themselves hard pressed in that direction.

Price Reviews

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of those who participate in the Price Reviews are from Scotland, Ulster and Wales, respectively; and if he will take steps to give reasonable representation to Wales.

Mr. Amory: The size and composition of the farmers' team at Price Review discussions is left entirely to the discretion of the three Farmers' Unions concerned. At the 1957 Annual Review, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland nominated six representatives; the Ulster Farmers' Union nominated seven representatives; the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales nominated ten representatives, including a member of the Union's Welsh Committee.

Fertilisers (Schemes)

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the cost of the Government contribution under the 1956 Fertilisers Scheme; and how much it is expected to be under the 1957 Scheme.

Mr. Amory: Payments under the 1956 Schemes are still being made, but the total expenditure is likely to be about £22 million. The cost of the proposals in the draft 1957 Scheme now before the House is expected to be about £28 million.

Mr. Champion: Was the increased cost due to the rise in price of sulphuric acid or to additional fertiliser use, or both?

Mr. Amory: The difference between the two figures I have just quoted is due


partly to the increase in the subsidy given at the last Annual Price Review and partly to a higher rate of consumption.

World Health Organisation (Report)

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has studied the Report of the Advisory Group on Veterinary Public Health to the World Health Organisation; and to what extent he proposes to adopt their recommendations.

Mr. Amory: This Report, which covers a wide field, is being considered, and I cannot yet say how far it will prove possible to adopt its recommendations.

Mr. Champion: Will the Minister say when he expects to have concluded his consideration of the matter?

Mr. Amory: Some of the questions involved are quite complicated, but I will make a note to write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know when our thoughts have crystallised.

Forestry Commission (Trading Accounts)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will arrange that the Forestry Commission's Annual Reports shall in future include a set of accounts prepared in commercial form in order that the economic return on the investment in growing timber, apart from the cost of research and the advisory services, can be assessed.

Mr. Amory: A commercial account of the operations of the Commission, in a form suitable for a forestry enterprise, is published annually in the Trading Accounts and Balance Sheets of Government Departments. As, however, at the present stage of development the bulk of the investment is in the form of young plantations, the ultimate economic return can only be estimated, as my hon. Friend, I know, realises.

Mr. Vane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trading account to which he referred does not really meet my Question, and is he further aware that, although the bulk of the plantations are still young, many of the Forestry Commission's large areas are claimed to show a profit on annual working? Ought he really not to look into this again, because it is surely time that a better form

of business accounts was published annually?

Mr. Amory: I should like to look into it with my hon. Friend's assistance, and I will get in touch with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Government Contracts

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Labour what action has been taken to review the possibility of extending the practice of Government Departments of costing their contracts so as to be able to offer sheltered workshops a large number of contracts on this basis in accordance with the suggestion of the Piercy Committee.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): This suggestion is being considered by my Department and the others concerned.

Mr. Willey: While the Parliamentary Secretary is considering that, would he consider something else also; that is, extending the idea of sponsorship to Government Departments and national public corporations?

Mr. Carr: I will certainly do that.

Mr. Osborne: Are many Government contracts issued without being properly costed?

Mr. Carr: That is another matter which is not for me to answer.

Wages, Costs and Prices

Mr. Robens: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to indicate his proposals for the setting up of an authoritative and impartial body to consider the wide implications of the movement of wages, costs and prices referred to in Command Paper No. 159.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): No, Sir. I am not yet able to make a statement about the proposals in the Command Paper. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are now having exploratory discussions on a wider basis with representatives of industry and a statement will be made in due course.

Mr. Robens: When the Prime Minister returned to the scene of his defeat by the


present hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and made his statement about consultations, is it the case that he made that speech without consultation with the right hon. Gentleman and without knowledge of the exact proposals that the Government proposed to put before the T.U.C. and industry?

Mr. Macleod: Not in the least. These discussions are going on. I have three of them this afternoon, and I am meeting representatives of the T.U.C. and of the nationalised industries within the next hour. The proposals are. however, at a very tentative stage, and it is right that in a proposal as important as this we should not make a statement until all those concerned have been fully consulted.

Bank Employees (Union Representation)

Mr. Robens: asked the Minister of Labour what progress he has made towards setting up national negotiating machinery in the banking industry in view of the fact that the National Union of Bank Employees has over 49,000 members and is denied the right of collective bargaining by the greater proportion of British banks.

Mr. Iain Macleod: This problem has been the subject of discussion between officers of my Department and the various interested parties on a number of occasions.
A part from the National Union, there are a number of staff associations representing employees in these banks. Most of these associations are affiliated to the Central Council of Bank Staff Associations.
When representatives of the Central Council and of the union finally made a joint request in 1956 to my Department for assistance in securing a meeting with the Committee of London Clearing Bankers to discuss the proposal for national machinery, the Committee pointed out that two staff associations had decided against the policy of joint conciliation machinery while a third staff association was not a member of the Central Council. The directors of these banks declined, therefore, to take part in any discussions on joint conciliation machinery.
My officers have recently had further talks with representatives of the union and the Central Council, from which it is clear that there has been no change in the circumstances which led the employers last year to refuse to enter into discussions with the union and the council. The talks have also revealed a fundamental difference as between the Central Council and the union in their conception of the purpose of national machinery.
Until a greater degree of unanimity has been developed amongst the staff organisations including the National Union of Bank Employees, there is little hope of the establishment of satisfactory national negotiating machinery.

Mr. Robens: Do I understand, then, that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take further action to try to secure from the London Clearing Bankers recognition of this organisation, which now includes half of the total number of employers in banks? Will he not consider inviting the bankers, the representatives of the staff associations' Central Council and the National Union of Bank Employees to a meeting under the chairmanship either of himself or of one of his officers to discuss this whole question?

Mr. Macleod: No; I do not think that that puts the matter fairly. After discussions with a number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman, 1 set on foot the inquiries to which I have referred. They have come to nothing, largely because there is no agreement on the staff side, and, equally, there is no agreement on negotiating machinery between the employers and the various associations. In this country we do not compel, and the Minister of Labour cannot compel, any employer to recognise any particular body or association. Until the staff side itself comes more closely together, I do not see any move from the present position.

Mr. Robens: While, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it is true that we have never had legislation to compel employers to recognise trade unions, is it not because employers throughout the years have generally been prepared voluntarily to recognise organisations of workers when their size is such as to justify recognition? Surely, here is a situation in which


bankers are refusing completely to recognise a trade union. If every employer took the same view as the bankers, would we not be discussing legislation to compel recognition?

Mr. Macleod: The point is not that no association has been recognised but that an association has been recognised which does not happen to be convenient to the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] That is a very different proposition.

Mr. J. Stuart: In view of the limited time allotted to Questions, may I suggest that this is a matter which should be debated and not dealt with by question and answer?

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Minister bear in mind our experience of the last 20–25 years that when employers insist on recognising only a company union, which very often they have established and sustained, and refuse to recognise another union which the men have joined voluntarily, that is the way to industrial trouble, as we know in our own various industries? Will not the Minister, therefore, impress upon the bank employers that it is expected of them that they will recognise this union which men have joined voluntarily?

Mr. Macleod: I can think of a much quicker way to industrial trouble, and that would be for the Minister of Labour to lay down which unions or associations should be recognised.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his predecessor, Viscount Monkton of Brenchley, who is now about to become Chairman of the Midland Bank, so that he might take the initiative in this matter by causing the Midland Bank to recognise the union? Would that not be an excellent beginning to the solution of this problem?

Mr. Macleod: Speaking from memory, I think that the Midland Bank is one of the banks referred to in my Answer as not recognising the joint machinery, as a result of which the present position has come about.

Mr. Leather: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that the fundamental point at issue is not whether this is a good or bad union, or even whether staff associations in themselves are good or

bad, but simply the fundamental right of a large group of workers to be represented as they want to be represented and not as their employers want them to be?

Mr. Macleod: I am not very far apart from that approach. It does not, however, touch the fundamental problem that I, as Minister of Labour, will not tell employers with whom they must negotiate.

Mr. Robens: We are not asking the right hon. Gentleman to tell the bankers anything. We are asking him to go to the bankers and consider consultations with the trade union and staff association so that an agreement can be reached. Why will the right hon. Gentleman not use his influence to speak to the banks?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall never get on with Questions at this rate.

Ordnance Factories

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he has made to absorb into suitable employment those employees who are threatened with redundancy as the result of the closing down of a number of Royal Ordnance factories.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Employment considerations are being taken into account in the review of the Royal Ordnance factories that is taking place and I am now in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. All the facilities of the employment exchange service will be used to help redundant workers to obtain other employment, but I cannot say anything about the prospects until it is known how many workers will be affected, which localities will be concerned and over what period discharges will occur.

Mr. Lee: Is the Minister aware that there is now great concern among the employees in the Royal Ordnance factories at the very uncertainty to which he has referred? Will he try to ensure that, instead of merely asking people to go to the employment exchanges when they become redundant, really constructive efforts are made to get appropriate work into the vicinity in which these men will shortly be unemployed so that they will not need to travel?

Mr. Macleod: If particular difficulties of that sort arise, we try, through a pooling system, to notify suitable vacancies in other areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Personal Case

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Labour if he has now completed his reconsideration of his refusal to allow the Salford engineering research technician, details of whose case have been sent to him, to take his final bachelor of science examination by studying after working hours before entering National Service.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I wrote to the hon. Member about this case on 21st May, and I have nothing to add to what I said in my letter.

Mr. Allaun: But is the Minister aware that working alongside this man are younger men who, having taken their degrees the easier way by full-time university study, have now been granted complete exemption from call-up? Why should the working-class student making exceptional efforts be granted less favourable treatment?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I do not think that is the position. I have written to the hon. Gentleman, and I should be very glad if he would care to publish the letter, because I think it is the fair approach to the matter. This man, after his apprenticeship, has, most exceptionally, had further deferment granted until August, 1958, to complete a two-year course for the intermediate B.Sc. I am quite satisfied that, as long as National Service lasts, one must be fair not only to the man but to all his contemporaries as well, and that, I am sure, is the principle on which this case must be judged.

Mr. Robens: But is it not the case that we have here a young man who went to an ordinary elementary school and then became an apprentice and, because of his ability, decided to enter for B.Sc.? Had he been in a family where money was available, he would probably have gone to the university instead of leaving school at fifteen. The boy is now within reasonable reach of becoming a B.Sc. Is it

not reasonable that, as the country needs scientists, the right hon. Gentleman should look into this case and realise that it is only because of the circumstances of this boy that he is not now a B.Sc. and free from military service.

Mr. Macleod: I have looked most closely at that. The circumstances in which additional deferment has been granted to this lad are already most exceptional. It is not possible for him to complete a final study for the B.Sc. before he reaches the age at which he would pass out of National Service. I do not think any Minister has made more relaxations than I have in these matters during the last year, but it is essential that while National Service lasts all people concerned are treated on the same basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Committal to Borstal (Prison Detention)

Sir K. Joseph: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons committed to Borstal are in prison awaiting admission to a Borstal Allocation Centre; and how many of these have been in prison for more than one month.

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many youths sentenced to corrective or Borstal training are detained in Her Majesty's prisons; how many have been in the prisons for periods of four weeks or more, and, in view of the fact that their detention in prisons is contrary to the courts sentences, when it will be possible to have the youths removed to training as sentenced.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): On 31st May there were in prison 164 boys sentenced to Borstal training available for transfer to reception centres, of whom 54 had been in prison for four weeks or more. The abnormal delay is due to the sharp increase in recent months of committals to Borstal, which has caused a shortage of accommodation in the training institutions.

Sir K. Joseph: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply and recognising the pressure on accommodation and the efforts to segregate these boys made by the prison authorities, especially in the prison which I visited, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend could assure the House that every effort will be made to keep these young Borstal boys isolated so far as practicable from the adult prisoners? Will he also undertake to consider arranging standby facilities for any similar time of pressure?

Mr. Butler: The Prison Commissioners have in mind the latter point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the parents of these boys are very distressed indeed about the fact that they are in ordinary prisons when they have not been sentenced to imprisonment? Is he aware that this action in retaining these boys in prisons makes the governor of the prison liable to action for wrongful detention of the boys concerned? When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make arrangements to ensure that the sentences of the court are properly carried out?

Mr. Butler: I have explained that this is because there has been an increase in committals. We have powers under Section 46 of the Prisons Act and, therefore, I do not think that anything illegal is being done. I regret this detention of boys, if they are being detained, but I assure the hon. Lady that we shall get this right as soon as we can.

Marriages, Scotland (Minors)

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consult the Secretary of State for Scotland and introduce legislation aimed at ensuring that minors from outside Scotland, who, by the law of their domicile, cannot marry without parental consent, shall not be able to enter into a valid marriage in Scotland.

Mr. R. A. Butler: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland explained on 21st May, in reply to Questions by the hon. Members for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) and Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) that it would be inappropriate for a statement to be

made on behalf of the Government on this subject because an appeal in a particular case is pending. I shall keep in touch with my right hon. Friend about the matter.

Mr. Vane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole circumstances of these marriages really do no credit to either England or Scotland and that sooner or later there really must be some change in the law, because on balance they bring far more misery than happiness?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the difficulty, but as there is litigation I cannot make any further statement today.

Accidents in the Home

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were killed and how many injured by electrocution through accidents in the home in 1955 and 1956, respectively; and what steps are being taken to avoid such accidents.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The numbers of fatal electrical accidents in the home in 1955 and 1956 were 39 and 55, respectively. No information is available regarding non-fatal accidents. Safety requirements are incorporated in British Standards Specifications covering a considerable range of electrical appliances for use in the home, and the Institute of Electrical Engineers has for many years issued regulations for the electrical equipment of buildings.

Mr. Hastings: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the numbers he has given me are unnecessarily high? Is he aware that there is an increasing use of electricity for all sorts of work in connection with the home, and would it not be worth while having an inquiry into the question whether more cannot be done to prevent these accidents? Is he aware that minor accidents, not resulting in death, are relatively common in connection with electrical equipment?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that. I will watch the situation, but I think that, in view of the steadily increasing number of electrical appliances, the accidents are not increasing in ratio to the expansion. Nevertheless, I am taking every care to watch this.

Borstal Institutions (Average Detentions)

Sir K. Joseph: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of detention in Borstal of any convenient comparable groups released in 1955 and 1956, respectively.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In 1955 the average length of detention for the maturer type of inmate in closed institutions was 22·1 months, and, in open institutions, 17·4 months, as compared with 21 months and 16·9 months respectively, in 1956. For the younger type of inmate the corresponding figures for 1955 are 25 months and 18·2 months, as compared with 22·5 months and 17·6 months in 1956.

Sir K. Joseph: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Commissioners to do all they can to maintain this most welcome trend, both because of the pressure of accommodation and because of the Mannheim findings last year in the study of Borstal that short sentences are quite as effective in reducing recidivism as longer sentences?

Mr. Butler: A Working Party is studying the Mannheim Report. When I have received the Working Party's report I will communicate with my hon. Friend. I welcome his acknowledgement that there has been an improvement in the trend.

Dartmoor Prison (Escapes)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the prison authorities accepted the aid of the foxhound pack of the Mid-Devon Hunt last Thursday to search for a prisoner escaped from Dartmoor.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The prison authorities are not responsible for the search for escaped prisoners and were not consulted in the matter.

Mr. Lipton: While welcoming the statement made by the Home Secretary that the prison authorities were neither consulted nor in fact approved the use of foxhounds in this case, may I ask him to say that he does not view with favour the use of foxhounds in such cases, no shortage of police dogs having been reported?

Mr. Butler: I am not ready to make any observations on this matter. I must leave this case to the discretion of the local constabulary, and in particular to the chief constable involved.

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement upon the recent escape from Dartmoor Prison and the subsequent discovery of firearms in the prison; and what steps he is taking to deal with the situation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The prisoner Fowler escaped in thick fog from an outside party on 14th May. I see no reason to connect his escape with the subsequent discovery of firearms. As to this, on 13th May a pistol and ammunition were found by a woman cleaner in the lavatory of a train on which prisoners were being conveyed by an escort from Dartmoor to London. On 19th May, the authorities discovered another pistol and ammunition buried in the quarry outside the prison. The prison and police authorities are aware of the possibility that further weapons may have been concealed, and necessary precautions have been taken.

Mr. Yates: In view of the public anxiety about these escapes, and the unsatisfactory arrangements in the opinion of prison officers, will the Home Secretary undertake an inquiry into whether the present system is satisfactory, so as to ensure that these events cannot occur again?

Mr. Butler: I understand the anxiety of the hon. Member and of the House about these revelations, but I do not think that an inquiry is necessary, because the Prison Commissioners have already taken most drastic action to deal with the situation. I am not prepared to give publicly particulars of that action, because it would not be in the general interest that I should do so, but I assure the hon. Member that the matter is well in hand and was brought fully to my attention.

Trooping the Colour Rehearsals (Traffic Congestion)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the traffic delays caused on Monday, 3rd June, by the rehearsal for


Trooping the Colour, he will take action to avoid similar inconvenience to the travelling public in future.

Mr. Ronald: Bell asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the widespread dislocation of motor traffic in London caused by the closing of St. James' Park on Monday morning last; and what steps he will take to ensure that similar conditions do not recur.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the traffic hold up which occurred in the West End of London on 3rd June as a result of the rehearsal for Trooping the Colour; and what instructions he is giving to the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis to prevent a repetition of this state of affairs on the occasion of the next rehearsal on 7th June.

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the traffic chaos which occurred on the morning of Monday, 3rd June, following the closing of the Mall; and if he will cancel the closing planned for Friday, 7th June, and arrange a suitable alternative hour when traffic is light.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that on the occasion of the first rehearsal of Trooping the Colour on 3rd June there was less congestion of traffic and less delay than in former years, probably because Birdcage Walk was kept open to traffic until noon instead of being closed at 9.30 a.m. as in the past. I am well aware, however, of the serious dislocation of traffic which arises from the need to close certain streets during rehearsals. While I am advised that it is not possible to cancel or alter the timing of the second rehearsal fixed for tomorrow, I propose to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War about the arrangements to be made in future years with a view to minimising the inconvenience to the public.

Mr. Lipton: Having urged both the present and previous Home Secretaries to do something about this for some years past, may I now ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise that, whilst the public do not object to perhaps a certain amount of inconvenience in connection with the

Trooping of the Colour ceremony itself, what they do object to is a three-fold dose of inconvenience caused by these rehearsals being held at inconvenient times of the day?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I realise this. It was even my wish to change the rehearsal for tomorrow, but unfortunately thousands of people have bought tickets for tomorrow's rehearsal so I cannot act tomorrow. However, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, I will try to see that less inconvenience is caused in the future.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is widely felt that it would be much more convenient to hold these rehearsals on a Saturday afternoon, which would avoid interference with normal business travel and would enable more people to see the rehearsals? May I further ask whether full publicity can be given as to which streets are to be closed, and when, both for tomorrow and on the actual day?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I will attempt to meet the desires of my hon. Friend. I had in mind already the possibility of Saturday on future occasions.

Hornsey By-Election (Incident)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on Thursday, 30th May, 1957, the police on duty outside the Hornsey Town Hall, on the occasion of the by-election count, took no action to prevent a sports car, particulars of which have been sent to him, from speeding through a crowd of some 300–400 on-lookers; that this created a serious disturbance and injury to at least one person; why the police constable who spoke to the driver and took particulars did not caution or warn him; and whether he will charge this driver for driving without due care and attention and as a danger to the public.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The enforcement of the law is for the Commissioner of Police and I am satisfied that it would not be proper for me to intervene or to make observations on the details of this case on which I have received a report from the Commissioner.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but is the Home Secretary aware that whilst appreciating the


natural disappointment of the Tory Party in almost losing that by-election, it should be no excuse for one of the Tories coming up in a sports car, trying to force his way through a crowd, and causing damage to one of the onlookers? Will he not, therefore, at least suggest to the Commissioner that he should make an investigation with a view to taking action against this individual?

Mr. Butler: My account of the accident is not quite so lurid or recumbent as that of the lion. Gentleman.

Universities (Security)

Mr. G. R. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes or extensions have been made during the last twelve months in the arrangements for checking teachers and students in universities for security purposes.

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inquiries are made with his authority to ascertain the political views and activities of university students, other than students applying for employment upon secret work.

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what approaches have been made in the last six months, by persons under his authority, to the staffs of universities asking them to report on political activities within the universities.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) on 28th May, special inquiries are made, at the universities where appropriate, about the reliability of Government staff to be employed on exceptionally secret work. Apart from these special inquiries, investigations have also to be undertaken in the universities as elsewhere from time to time to protect the security of the State. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the nature of the arrangements made to carry out these investigations, but I can say that no significant changes or extensions have been made in the last twelve months.

Mr. Strauss: May I ask the Home Secretary this question? Whilst 'the need for checking formally, through tutors,

students applying for secret jobs is generally accepted, the belief that there may be on the staff unidentified persons who are passing on information to M.I.5 about their colleagues, or about students, is bound to poison the atmosphere of a university, and in view of that fact, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the evidence which is now available from that angle, as well as the security angle, to see whether he cannot allay the real anxieties which now exist in many university circles?

Mr. Butler: I think that there is natural anxiety that there should be a system which works but does not prevent the liberty of the students from being fully enjoyed. I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that there is no need to exaggerate the position. I have simply informed the House that we are following the practice which was approved by the Conference of Privy Councillors, which, the House will remember, concluded that there was nothing organically wrong or unsound about the Government's security arrangements. So far as I can see, there have been no alterations of a marked nature since that date. Being myself particularly closely associated with the universities, I think I can assure the House that there is no abuse in this matter.

Mr. Strauss: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent the Report of the Conference of Privy Councillors. I am sure he is aware that it did not go into this aspect of the problem at all and did not consider the detailed arrangements for security in universities.

Mr. Butler: I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman himself gave useful service in this connection, but the Conference approved the general outline of our arrangements, and, as I said in my answer, the arrangements have to be applied wherever they are necessary, whether it be in the universities or elsewhere. The undertaking which I can now give is that this matter will be very closely watched by myself as the guardian of private liberty.

Mr. Younger: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the further assurance that he accepts that universities are in a rather special position, fortunately—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because the political activities of students should be taken


very much less seriously than the political activities of more adult people, and also because it is particularly important that students—

Mr. Ellis Smith: And shop stewards.

Mr. Younger: —should not be spied on by people either on the staff or in the student body? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept it that universities are a very special type of community?

Mr. Butler: I think we are all aware that universities have a certain licence of liberty and speech, and that without that they would not be healthy. At the same time, there are general considerations affecting the security of the State, which were revealed, subject to what the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) says, in the Report of the Conference of Privy Councillors, and these general considerations must apply all round in the State wherever it may be.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Peckham and Camberwell Sub-Division (Transfers)

Mrs. Corbet: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why two senior police officers were recently transferred at short notice from the Peckham and Camberwell sub-division, in view of the fact that such precipitate transfer inflicts hardship on the officers concerned, and has acted as a reflection on their competence and integrity.

Mr. R. A. Butler: These officers were transferred because the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis decided that it was necessary in the interests of efficiency. I understand that they have been informed that the transfer in no way reflects on their integrity and I have no reason to think that there is any hardship other than the normal inconvenience which is caused by transfers.

Mrs. Corbet: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are a number of unsatisfactory features to this case, and will he undertake that a full inquiry will be made into them?

Mr. Butler: I regret that I cannot agree to that. I must leave matters of this sort to the discretion of the Commissioner of Police.

Cup Final (Duties)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of police in the Metropolitan force were on duty at Wembley Stadium on the occasion of the Cup Final on 4th May; and what numbers were on duty elsewhere because of this event.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The number of police on duty at Wembley Stadium on the occasion of the Cup Final on 4th May was 370, of whom 97 were employed inside the Stadium and the remainder outside. A further 140 officers were employed on duties arising directly or indirectly from this match.

Mr. Skeffington: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when a certain fatality was discovered in Cranford Park, Middlesex, a request was made for police to help urgently in a search of a very large area and that the whole proceeding was handicapped by the fact that police officers were not available?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member will give me particulars of that matter. I will certainly look into them.

Palace of Westminster

Mr. Leavey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policemen are normally on duty in and around the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. R. A. Butler: When Parliament is in session there are normally up to 69 police officers on duty at any one time in and around the Palace of Westminster. When Parliament is not in session the number does not exceed 20.

Mr. Leavey: I am very grateful for that figure, but since it reveals that the policing here is on a fairly lavish scale, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider consulting those concerned to see whether all these police officers are as usefully employed as they could be, having regard to the fact that in the Metropolitan area the police services are still below establishment? Would my right hon. Friend recognise that, while we know of a number of police officers here whose work is invaluable, it might be possible that others are not so fully employed?

Mr. Butler: These figures apply to officers on beats and road crossings near the Palace of Westminster and apply to Mondays to Fridays only. I think that in the circumstances the police look after us very well.

Telephone Conversations (Interception)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances he authorised the police to supply the Bar Council, in connection with a disciplinary matter affecting a barrister, with transcripts of intercepted telephone conversations in the London area.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The material in question was obtained under the authority of a warrant of the Secretary of State and related to the case of a notorious and self-confessed criminal. It was disclosed to the Bar Council in response to a request from the Council for assistance in inquiries which they were making into complaints about the professional conduct of a particular barrister.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not a monstrous state of affairs that a telephone conversation between a barrister and his instructing solicitor should be intercepted, transcribed and transmitted to the Bar Council and to the benchers of Lincoln's Inn by someone acting under the authority of the Home Secretary? Are we now living in a police State?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the last part of the question is that the hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Secretary of State of the day only acts in this way when he realises that the public interest necessitates such action. I will give an undertaking to the House that this action will never be used except in the interests of public order. I would like to add that it is of the highest importance that persons concerned in the administration of justice should not be associated with criminals in their criminal activities. Because of these considerations, it was thought right to assist the Bar Council in their investigations of allegations of this nature.

Mr. Younger: Would the Home Secretary not agree that it is, to say the least, extremely unusual for the product of police inquiries, whether by this method or any other, to be made available to

persons other than prosecuting authorities? Is not this a principle of general application, and can the right hon. Gentleman be much more precise than he has been as to the circumstances in which he is apparently prepared personally to authorise the transmission and use of police information to unofficial bodies?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, I am not prepared to go into detail in this matter, which derives from the Prerogative, and which is a power that I should exercise at my discretion.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Younger: Is the Home Secretary referring to the right to intercept telephone calls or the right to transmit official information to outside bodies? The second point has nothing to do with the Prerogative so far as I am aware.

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. I was referring to his first point. On the second point, the circumstances of this case made this action desirable.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Paget: Has it not been a custom of our country connected with liberty that communications, even between criminals and their lawyers, should be specially privileged and not put in evidence, and is it not rather dangerous to invade that principle in this way? Is it not very unusual and new?

Mr. Butler: I think it would be wrong if anyone under-estimated the importance of this question or of the answers I have given, but I cannot carry the matter any further today because I consider that the circumstances of this case justify the action that was taken.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure the Home Secretary will appreciate that this is a matter which is causing a great deal of concern. Can he say whether there is any precedent for information of this kind being divulged to an unofficial body such as the Bar Council? Will he, if he cannot make a statement today, make a further statement tomorrow before we adjourn for the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Butler: Naturally I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but I do not think I should have anything to add to what I have said today.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my first point about whether there was any precedent for action of this kind being taken.

Mr. Butler: I would not be able to say whether there was an actual precedent in relation to the Bar Council, but I am aware of precedents for action of this kind in dealing with criminal cases. I would have to investigate whether there was an actual precedent of this kind.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I press the right hon. Gentleman, since this is a matter of great importance? The House will understand if he asks for a little more time before making a fuller statement on the whole situation, but in view of the Whitsun Recess I ask him whether he cannot give us an undertaking to make a statement tomorrow before we adjourn?

Mr. Butler: I have already said, as I should rightly do, that I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's request, but I could not give any undertaking before I had considered the matter further.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the earliest possible Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

GIFTS TO THE PARLIAMENT AND GOVERNMENT OF GHANA

Mr. Gaitskell: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he is yet in a position to make a statement about the proposed gifts to the Parliament and Government of Ghana to mark Ghana's attainment of independence.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have authorised me to propose to you, Sir, that you should, on behalf of this House, offer to the Parliament of Ghana the gift of a Chair for their Speaker, with hearty congratulations on Ghana's attainment of full independence within the Commonwealth, and with best wishes for the happiness and prosperity of her people.
Her Majesty's Government have also decided to offer the gift of a piece of sculpture to the Government of Ghana to mark Ghana's attainment of independence. The precise form of this gift will

be decided in discussion with the Ghana Government.

Mr. Gaitskell: I should like to say, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, that we warmly support the proposal that you, Mr. Speaker, should offer the Government of Ghana a Chair on behalf of the House of Commons, and we wish to associate ourselves with the congratulations and good wishes to be extended to the people of Ghana on this happy occasion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for the first week after the Whitsun Recess?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Whitsun Recess will be as follows:

TUESDAY, 25TH JUNE—Supply [18th Allotted Day]: Committee, which it is proposed to take formally.

Debate on an Opposition Motion relating to the Gowers Report on Health, Safety and Welfare in Shops, Offices and Railway Employment, and Shops' Closing Hours.

WEDNESDAY, 26TH JUNE, and THURSDAY, 27TH JUNE—Further progress will be made in Committee with the Finance Bill.

FRIDAY, 28TH JUNE—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Leader of the House say when the White Paper on disarmament, for which we asked last week, is likely to be ready? Also, can he say whether the Government will find time for a debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Law Relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency?

Mr. Butler: Did the right hon. Gentleman ask when we could announce the policy on mental health?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, whether the Government would find time for a debate.

Mr. Butler: In reply to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I regret that we are not in a position at


the moment to publish a White Paper on the disarmament talks. Negotiations are at present proceeding on a basis of informal consultations rather than set proposals, and they may go on for some time. As soon as we are in a position to do so, I will inform the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
With regard to the subject of a debate on the very important Report on mental health, I suggest that we discuss that through the usual channels on the understanding that a little more time had better be given for the full consideration of this important Report.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Government agree that it might be desirable to have the debate on mental health before they have made up their mind, so that they can take into account views expressed in all quarters of the House?
With regard to the proposed White Paper on disarmament, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will seriously consider publishing, at any rate, what they can, because we really are in some difficulty in this matter? The disarmament negotiations appear to be taking place in a sort of half-secret atmosphere in which some things are published and some are not. It would be very helpful to the House if, before we debate disarmament —and we wish to do it as soon as possible—we could have a statement from the Government indicating the various proposals that have been made.

Mr. Butler: The difficulty here is that we are really running under rules laid down by the General Assembly about the proceedings being held in private. I am informed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that it has not been the custom to release the Sub-Committee's records and papers until after the end of each session. Therefore, we have to consider our partners in this enterprise as well as ourselves. Subject to that, I would certainly consider, with my right hon. and learned Friend, the right hon. Gentleman's request.
The subject of mental health is clearly a subject about which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health must have the views of not only the authorities and bodies in the country but, naturally, this

honourable House. We shall endeavour to fulfil that request.

Mr. Russell: Can my right hon. Friend arrange for us to have a debate on roads soon after the Whitsun Recess, in view of the great developments which have taken place both here and abroad since we last debated the subject?

Mr. Butler: I realise that everybody is interested in roads, but we shall have to see whether there is time.

Mr. S. Silverman: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any consideration to the date—it should, if possible, be an early date—on which he could give the House an opportunity of debating a matter which is causing considerable anxiety in the House and considerable public anxiety outside, namely, the growing and secret encroachment of the Executive on the principles of civil liberty by means of the wire tapping of telephones, secret reports, and the handing out of confidential information to unauthorised persons?

Mr. Butler: I think that the hon. Member is grossly exaggerating the situation. He will be aware that any Government must take precautions to secure public order and the security of the State. There is no question of there being any enlargement of powers which are an acknowledged part of any Government and which do not form a very suitable subject for public debate. Therefore, I can give no undertaking to the hon. Gentleman, but I should like to assure him that there is nothing, I think, to which he need take undue exception.

Mr. Cole: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) and ask my right hon. Friend seriously to consider the request for a debate on roads when we return after Whitsun, in view of the developments which are taking place in this connection and also of the great importance of this matter to the House and to the economy of the country?

Mr. Butler: Certainly, Sir. It is my business to consider points of view put forward by hon. Members. As two hon. Members have expressed a view upon it. this matter will certainly receive consideration.

Miss Lee: May I ask the Leader of the House how soon he expects to have the report of the investigation which he asked Sir John Harding, Governor of Cyprus, to make into certain alleged abuses by some officers and some personnel of the Special Branch? Will he undertake to give the House an opportunity to debate the report as soon as he receives it?
Further, will the right hon. Gentleman supplement the investigation which the Governor of Cyprus is making in Cyprus by sending an independent committee to Wormwood Scrubs this afternoon to examine certain Cypriots who are there? It is alleged that these Cypriots, if they are examined now, will be important witnesses, as they claim that they have been very badly treated. If we wait until the House meets after Whitsun, this important evidence—[Interruption.] It is only alleged—I do not know—but I think that the matter ought to be investigated by an independent committee.

Mr. Butler: I.wsill immediately discuss this matter, which the hon. Lady describes as urgent, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Miss Lee: On a point of order. I give notice that I will not raise this matter on the Adjournment, because if it is true that the Home Secretary, as guardian of individual liberty, is concerned in these matters, I am entitled to have an answer now, or to take other steps to see whether these allegations about prisoners in Wormwood Scrubbs are true.

Mr. Butler: I say quite simply that I did not know that there were any Cypriots at Wormwood Scrubbs and, therefore. I must investigate the matter to which the hon. Lady has drawn my attention before I can give an answer, and also consult my right hon. Friend. If she would care to see me after the debate this afternoon and give me the facts, I will, of course, look into them immediately.

Mr. Nabarro: Having regard to the publication yesterday of the Annual Report and Accounts of the National Coal Board, accompanied by the Chairman's statement predicting further increases in the price of coal, can my right

hon. Friend say whether he will be able to arrange the nationalisation days, which we are allocated, within a reasonable period so that we can discuss this important Report and the Accounts within a few weeks of publication, instead of, as on previous occasions, up to twelve months in arrears?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly look into my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. Grimond: Reverting to the question of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), does not the Leader of the House agree that it would be useful to have some discussion on how the security procedures established by the Privy Councillors are working, particularly as they seem to be extended a good deal more widely than most of us thought would be the case when we last discussed them?

Mr. Butler: This is obviously a matter of great interest to all hon. Members, as it concerns the liberty of the subject. Dr. Johnson said that to try to combine unbounded liberty with reasonable protection of the State was a very difficult thing to do. I will, therefore, be very glad to discuss this with the hon. Member. We shall see how we can best consider the matter

Mr. Paget: Has the Leader of the House observed that the Prime Minister's Questions have not been reached today and that failure to get through the Prime Minister's Questions is becoming the rule rather than the exception? As they tend to be important, will he consider the possibility of advancing the Prime Minister's Questions perhaps from Question No. 45 to Question No. 30?

Mr. Butler: I should have to consult my right hon. Friend on his convenience in this matter. Very often we have made sufficient progress to reach his Questions, but there was a particular interest in the earlier part of Question Time today in port wine, which somewhat delayed us.

Mr. Awbery: When can we expect the report of the negotiations with Abdul Rahman on the independence of Malaya?

Mr. Butler: I will inquire from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

TEACHERS (TRAINING COURSE)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the training of teachers.
The Government have decided to extend from two to three years the course of training which leads to the status of qualified teacher. This change will be made in 1960 and will apply to all students who enter the general teacher training colleges in or after September of that year. The necessary changes in the regulations will be made later.
My noble Friend has just made a similar statement in another place.

Miss Herbison: We welcome this statement, which somewhat belatedly brings England and Wales into line with Scotland. We welcome it because we feel that it is of the utmost importance that children, primary school children especially, should be taught by men and women who are adequately trained. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me whether there are any special reasons, now that the decision has been made, why we should wait until 1960? Will it not be possible to begin in 1959? Has consideration been given to what use will be made of the extra year?

Sir E. Boyle: As the hon. Lady rightly said, this change will bring the position in England and Wales into line with that in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The choice of 1960 for the introduction of the longer course takes account of the prospect of a sharp decrease in the number of children at school after 1961. The choice of 1960, will, therefore, mean that we will not have to halt the process of reducing the size of classes. The National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers will shortly publish a report designed to stimulate discussion about the scope and content of the longer course, and my noble Friend hopes to issue a short pamphlet embodying some suggestions put forward by Her Majesty's inspectors.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will there be large-scale expansions of the training colleges in time for this proposal?

Sir E. Boyle: It will not be accompanied by any significant expansion of the training colleges. The output of trained teachers will, therefore, be reduced by about one-third, but my noble Friend is satisfied that the resulting numbers are likely to match demand for teachers in the 1960s, so far as this can be foreseen now. I made a very full statement on this subject in a debate on 5th April.

Mr. S. O. Davies: In South Wales particularly there are scores of young people educationally qualified to take up training for the teaching profession, but who cannot get into any training college in the country. Will the hon. Gentleman look into that matter? On that subject I speak not only for my own constituency but for every adjoining constituency. It is hopeless for many of these youngsters, who have done extremely well in their secondary grammar schools, to try to get into a training college. What can the Parliamentary Secretary say on that aspect of the matter?

Sir E. Boyle: Of course, I will gladly consider any evidence which the hon. Gentleman likes to bring before me, but, as I explained in the debate on 5th April, we have had to look at the demand for teachers in the 1960s, when the problem of the bulge will have been largely overcome. It would, perhaps, be opportune to remind ourselves how much we owe to the teachers who have borne the burden and heat of the day in the 1950s.

Mr. Short: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider making the status of a three-year course equal to a university course and culminating in a degree in education?

Sir E. Boyle: I will think about that, but I cannot comment on it this afternoon.

Mrs. Slater: Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain how, if there is to be no comparable progress in the provision of places in the training colleges and no immediate change in the building programme for training colleges, classes will not become smaller?

Sir E. Boyle: May I make it clear again that there is no question of going back on our policy of reducing the size of classes in primary schools? That remains our policy and, of course, I do not rule out adjustments in the light of


further evidence. I was concerned only to point out that the introduction of the longer course in 1960 will not, of itself, be accompanied by a significant expansion of the colleges.

Dr. King: While welcoming this step forward, and congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on a great educational advance, will he again reconsider the second part of his statement today? Does he not realise that he is in danger of taking away at least half of the benefit of increasing the period of training for teachers if he cuts down by one-third the annual output of teachers from the training colleges?

Sir E. Boyle: Of course, my noble Friend and I will take account of what has been said. I was concerned to point out, first, that there will be no going back on the policy of reducing class sizes and, secondly, that we believe that the resulting numbers, even after the introduction of the three-year course, are very likely to match the demand for teachers in the 1960s, so far as we can foresee that at the present time.

Mr. Jennings: Is my hon. Friend aware that this step, which has long been pressed by teachers and teachers' organisations, will, in spite of the fears and doubts expressed by hon. Members opposite, be regarded as highly beneficial to the educational systems of the future?

Sir E. Boyle: I thank my hon. Friend.

Mr. D. Howell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in this matter, he has consulted the local education authorities or their representatives and whether, in particular, in hard-pressed industrial areas such as Birmingham, where there is also very great difficulty, he has assessed the mathematical proportion of teachers to pupils when this scheme comes into effect? Can he assure us that the position in such areas will not be worse?

Sir E. Boyle: It is difficult to make precise detailed forecasts for any particular area. My noble Friend explained at a conference at Easter that this reform was in his mind; there certainly have been very full discussions.

BILL PRESENTED

ARMY (CONDITIONS OF ENLISTMENT)

Bill to make further provision as to the transfer to the reserve or determination of service of persons serving in the army for a term of twenty-two years, presented by Mr. Hare; supported by Mr. Sandys, Mr. George Ward, and Mr. Soames; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 25th June, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Committee of Supply discharged from considering the Estimates set out hereunder and the said Estimates referred to the Scottish Standing Committee:

Class I. Vote 23. Scottish Home Department.

Class III. Vote 15, Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services).

Class III. Vote 16, Police, Scotland.

Class III. Vote, 17, Prisons. Scotland.

Class III, Vote 19, Fire Services, Scotland.

Class V, Vote 13, Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland.

Class IX, Vote 9, Roads, etc.. Scotland. —[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,
That during the absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means, owing to temporary indisposition. Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray shall be appointed an additional Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means and shall be entitled to exercise all the powers vested in the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, including his powers as Deputy-Speaker.
I have it in command from Her Majesty to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the subject matter of this Motion empowering a member of the Chairmen's Panel to act as Speaker, gives Her consent thereto.
The House is aware that the Chairman of Ways and Means has to undergo an operation. We all regret his absence and hope that he will soon be fit and well and able to resume his duties.
In order, Mr. Speaker, that the Deputy-Chairman may receive some relief in the Chair, the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) has kindly agreed to act temporarily as an additional Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means. I therefore commend this Motion to the House.

Mr. Gaitskell: My right hon. and hon. Friends would wish to be associated with the remarks of the Leader of the House about the regrettable illness of the Chairman of Ways and Means and to express the hope, as he has done, that he will recover very speedily. We would also like to express our good wishes to the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) in taking on this somewhat onerous duty.

Question put and agreed to.

WHITSUNTIDE ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 25th June.— [Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Mr. Frank Beswick: I think that it would be wrong to accept this Motion without considering the circumstances in which it is put forward. I do not think that it can be claimed that the reason for this unusually long Recess is because there is no legislation to occupy the House. There is legislation and, in particular, there is the Shops Bill.
I hope that I am not being unfair to the Lord Privy Seal when I say that I cannot but think that there was just a touch of cynicism when he told us last week that it was proposed to adjourn until 25th June and then went on immediately, in the very next few words, to tell us that it was not now practicable to proceed with the Shops Bill this Session for lack of Parliamentary time. The Lord Privy Seal spoke about the time that had been taken in another place on this Bill, but that point was raised by Opposition spokesmen in another place and they were assured by the Government spokesman, as recently as 26th March, that it was the Government's intention to put this Bill through Parliament this Session. What has happened since that assurance was given in another place?
Certainly, there has not been any democratic expression of opinion against the Bill. But there has been pressure from certain organs of the national Press and by some of the back benchers of the party opposite, led by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), the self-appointed Jorrocks of the Tories, who gloated last weak about the demise of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) voiced last week the indignation of the shopworkers about the decision of the Government to put this Bill aside. I should like to emphasise that it is not only the workers in the retail trades who have been indignant about this decision and not only the employees; all the best employers want this legislation. Practically all the


reputable trade organisations have expressed their desire to see this Bill upon the Statute Book.
I am very pleased to see that the Jorrocks of the Tory movement has returned to his place. I was referring to the fact that mention had been made on the benches opposite, and by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, about the wishes of the shopping public.
I was about to say that the Co-operative movement, for which I speak on this occasion, is competent to speak about the wishes of the shopping public and is, in fact, owned and controlled by representatives of the shopping public. It has, throughout, expressed its wish to see the recommendations of the Gowers Report placed upon the Statute Book. There may have been some criticism about the details of this legislation, but it seems to us that the proper place to discuss it and, if necessary, to amend it, is on the Floor of this House.
It seems to me that the Government are too ready to override or to ignore the wishes of the House of Commons. It has been so on other occasions and they appear to be ready to do so on this occasion. I do not think that anyone can doubt that there is a desire to see some review of the Shops Acts. The Government spokesman in another place said that the present legislation is a farrago of nonsense and that the present provisions are quite unworkable.
Therefore, I say that it is reasonable for the Lord Privy Seal, when asking us to accept the Motion, at any rate to give us some assurance that the Shops Bill or similar legislation will be introduced, if not in this Session, then certainly in the next one. I hope that he will take this opportunity to give us that assurance.

Mr. Walter Padley: I want to speak strongly against the Motion, because I believe that it will be a scandalous dereliction of the public duty of this House if it adjourns for twice the length of the customary Whitsun Recess when a Measure affecting the working conditions of more than 2 million people remains for the House to debate. No doubt the Leader of the House will say that there are precedents for a Whitsun Recess of this length, but I challenge him to quote a precedent where the Leader of

the House has gone to the Dispatch Box to confirm a nearly three-week Whitsun Recess and, immediately afterwards, has stated that the Government have decided to drop a Measure which they themselves, in the Queen's Speech, described as a major Measure.
I want to refresh the memory of the House. The Gracious Speech described the Shops Bill in these terms:
My Ministers are resolved to maintain progress in improving social and working conditions, and you will be invited to approve a Bill to amend the law about the closing hours of shops and related matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November 1956; Vol. 560, c. 18.]
That item of legislation has a long history. In the middle of the night of 18th November, 1952, when the Government abandoned 6 o'clock closing under the war-time regulations, Lord Kilmuir—as he now is—who was then the Home Secretary, gave a pledge that there would be immediate consultations upon the Gowers Committee Report with a view to the introduction of legislation. In that speech the only point that he left open was the question whether the general closing hour should be 6 p.m., as advocated by the Trades Union Congress or 7 p.m., with the right for local authorities to bring the time forward to 6 p.m., as advocated in the Gowers Report.
In July, 1955, Sir Anthony Eden, the Prime Minister, gave a pledge to the Trades Union Congress—representing 9 million workers—that in the following Session, or the one after that, a new Shops Bill would be presented. Last week, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was not time in this Parliamentary Session. He referred to the prolonged discussions and the great deal of time taken in another place. I attended most of the discussions in the other place. It took eight days, really. The Second Reading took place on 29th November, and five days between 12th February and 26th March were taken up in Committee. The Bill was recommitted—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is my duty to remind the hon. Member that he cannot criticise the proceedings in another place.

Mr. Padley: I was not criticising the proceedings in another place, Mr. Speaker. I was reminding the right hon. Gentleman of the facts.
The facts are that the Bill was recommitted on 7th May and had its Report and Third Reading on 16th May. The total time taken by their noble Lordships was 24 hours 52 minutes, or approximately three and a half working days of this House. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, that I suspect that the doubling of the Whitsun Recess has been done to provide the Government with an excuse for surrendering to this mean and contemptible campaign against the shopworkers of Britain.
In recent times certain right hon. Gentlemen opposite and the newspapers of the "Establishment" have lectured trade unionists and told them that they should accept arbitration and the findings of committees of inquiry. There was a committee of inquiry into this question—the Gowers Committee—which was accepted even by a Conservative Government, but then, because of an orgy of Poujadist spite in certain sections of the Press and on the lunatic fringe of the Tory Party, we find that the Government, which acted upon the basis of a high-powered committee of inquiry in the first place, have now retreated and have abandoned the Bill.
The Government have done this without consulting great representative organisations of opinion. I ask hon. Members opposite to remember that the Bill as it was presented originally in another place had the support not only of my own union, with its 357,000 members but of the T.U.C., with 9 million members, the Standing Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations—far and away the most represenative women's organisation in Britain, with roughly 2 million members —the Co-operative movement, with 11 million members, the National Chamber of Trade, representing 860 local chambers of trade, and 34 national traders' organisations.
At the beginning of May, when all this discussion was taking place, the National Chamber of Trade held its annual conference in the Empress Ballroom, Blackpool. It supported the original draft of the Bill on general closing hours, with but one dissentient. Let hon. Members opposite reflect that these people in the Empress Ballroom were not trade unionists; in the main, they represented the working shopkeepers of Britain. It is a disgraceful thing that after the

Gowers Committee had reported, after pledges had been given by the Home Secretary in 1952 and the Prime Minister in 1955, and after the Government themselves had introduced the Bill into the House of Lords, they should first allow a protracted delay and then the deletion of the most progressive Clauses of the Bill in the Lords and, finally, last Thursday, that there should have been this ignominious; surrender.
I protest against this doubling of the Whitsun Recess. The struggle to obtain decent legislation for shop and allied workers has a long history. It stretches back for a hundred years, during which we had the early closing riots, with shop windows being broken and trade union leaders gaoled. That is the social history of shops legislation. I say to hon. Members opposite that if Britain is not prepared to come into line with the advanced countries of Europe and the Commonwealth—for example, Scandinavia, Western Germany, Austria, the German-speaking cantons of Switzerland, Luxembourg, Australia and New Zealand—it means that Britain will continue to be a leader of reaction at conferences of the International Labour Organisation.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: If the hon. Member really wants British shops to come into line with European shops, does he realise that they will all have to open on Sundays?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question of the hours of British and European shops are really out of order on this Motion, which is that we should adjourn until 25th June. I think that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) has made his point very well, but he must not go into the merits of the Shops Bill, because that is not before us. I heard from the Leader of the House today that there is to be a debate upon this very subject when we come back. That fact should be borne in mind.

Mr. Padley: I gladly accept that Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was simply criticising the fact that the Bill had been dropped, and not its detailed provisions. The hen. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) does not know anything about shop conditions except in the tourist parts of Europe. Certainly, in Franco Spain what he says is true, but whether people want to claim Franco Spain as a progressive country of Europe I do not know.
I conclude on this note. After the Gowers Committee inquiry and the pledges made by Conservative Ministers there has been this ignominous surrender, and for this House to go into double the normal Whitsun Recess is a scandal. As hon. Members opposite go off to their racecourses, their yachts and their tourist resorts, they take with them the curses of 2 million distributive workers.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I oppose the Motion for this reason. The Home Secretary made a statement the appalling enormity of which may take a little time to be realised. When he was asked to provide time, or to make a statement tomorrow upon the subject of intercepted telephone calls, he brushed aside all the representations that had been made to him by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others who were deeply concerned about this state of affairs, as revealed by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
We are asked to adjourn in face of an admission by the Government that any
telephone communication by any barrister or solicitor handling a criminal case is liable to interception by the police on the Home Secretary's warrant. How that is calculated to assist the course of justice is something which I hope the Bar Council—

Mr. Speaker: That, again, I must point out, is not the Question before the House. The hon. Member is entitled to say that this is an important matter, which ought to be discussed before we rise, but I do not think that he can go into detail about it.

Mr. Lipton: I agree, Mr. Speaker, and I do not propose to go into detail, but this matter is so vital—

Mr. Cyril Osborne: On a point of order. Has not the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) given notice earlier today to raise this matter on the Adjournment? Is it in order for him to discuss it now?

Mr. Speaker: I had forgotten that. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) for reminding me of it. I think that on this Motion the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) would be anticipating the debate on the Adjournment if he carried it too far.

Mr. Lipton: I take it that this is an Adjournment Motion.

Mr. Speaker: It is not an Adjournment Motion in the sense that the Question is, "That this House do now adjourn." That is the proper Adjournment Motion. This is a proposal that we should adjourn tomorrow, not today.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to that point of order. If my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) were proposing to debate the merits of the points to which he has referred, no doubt that would be to anticipate the notice which he himself gave, and it might very well be out of order, but as I understood my hon. Friend's argument it was not that at all. He was saying that here was a subject which the House wished to discuss, that the Government had refused time for the House to discuss it and yet, at the same time, were inviting the House to go away for nearly three weeks. His point was that if we did not accept the Government's Motion there would be plenty of time in which this point could be discussed on its merits.

Mr. Speaker: That is more or less what I said to the hon. Member for Brixton.

Mr. Lipton: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. The statement made by the Home Secretary represents such a damaging admission, in my view, that our civil liberties are in danger. I therefore hope that in asking us to adjourn for the period in question the Home Secretary will realize that the public conscience is outraged by the statement which he made today. Although hon. Members opposite may wish to howl me down on this subject, because they are not interested in the point which I am trying to make, I never theless want to register the strongest possible protest of which I am capable—

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: That is not much.

Mr. Lipton: —against the police State tactics now being employed by the Government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is entitled to make the strongest possible protest only against the Question, "That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 25th June," and not against anything else.

Mr. Lipton: I do not think that we ought to adjourn until this very serious matter has been fully discussed and explained.

Mr. R. T. Paget: My complaint against the Government is not that they have deceived the House. It is, perhaps, that they have not deceived the House. They seem to have got into the habit of telling us what order requires us to refer to as terminological inexactitudes, although elsewhere there is a simpler and shorter word, of such a nature that no sane man can be expected to believe them. That was our experience throughout the Suez controversy and it has been our experience again about the Shops Bill.
The Government decide—and I am not saying that this is necessarily wrong—that a Measure does not command the sympathy or approval of a part of their supporters, and they decide to drop it. I think it is very unfortunate that it should have been dropped, but it is an understandable thing for a Government to do. But why tell us that they are doing it because there is not enough time and then ask for double the length of the Whitsun Recess? Who do they expect to believe it? When one goes in for making that sort of statement, is it not treating the House with contempt?
I feel considerable anxiety about the House rising before we have had a statement on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)—a question which involves issues very sacred to our English conception of civil liberties. This is not the same conception as elsewhere. We are not here concerned with constitutional declarations. We are concerned with access to the courts, and access to the courts involves access to lawyers, access to people who can put one's case before the courts, whether it be for the defence or against the defence. There must be some confidence that these communications to lawyers are sacred and will not be interfered with and—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is anticipating an Adjournment debate on this matter. He should direct his mind to the question of the length of the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Paget: With great respect, Mr. Speaker. I hope I am not doing that.
I do not know, and from his reply the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary did not seem to realise, what the importance of this case was. I know absolutely nothing whatever about the case which my hon. Friend has raised I am concerned about the principle and I am seeking to say that this principle, which I am trying to explain to the right hon. Gentleman, has been challenged, either rightly or wrongly; and that when we are anxious about it we should not adjourn. I certainly do not want to go into the application of this case. I am seeking only to indicate that the question of a man's access to his lawyers and of the sanctity of those communications is essentially involved in our English conception of civil rights.
It is my personal experience—and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have had the same experience—that when we have had briefs and communications in respect of the defence of clients, what has been in our briefs and in those communications may have been of the greatest value to the prosecution. But we never took the slightest attempt to guard those briefs. We left them in charge of the police. They looked after them and handed them back to us. It never occurred to us for one moment that anybody connected with the prosecution or the police would dream of looking at our briefs or looking at the communications which we had received from our clients. If that principle is challenged, I do not think we ought to settle it without having a serious statement upon it.

Mr. Richard Body: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman concludes, would he consider this whole issue a little more carefully and find out a little more about the facts and the background to the case? If he were to do that, I do not think he would express those views about this particular case.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This shows the House where we get in these debates. We are discussing whether or not we should adjourn until 25th June, and I hope that the House will stick to that Question.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. All I am seeking to say, Sir, is that I know nothing about the circumstances of this case, or whether anything has been done


about it. All I am saying is that the principle has been challenged and that we ought to have a statement before we separate for the Recess.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I support the protest of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I was profoundly shocked when I heard the Home Secretary's replies on this matter at Question Time today. One must give the Home Secretary the credit of not having fully realised the seriousness of what he said. It is because it is so serious that I must add my protest against the Motion that we should adjourn for two and a half weeks.
It has been a fundamental principle of civic liberties that communications between an accused person and his professional legal advisers were sacred and privileged. The Home Secretary, by his statement, is invading that fundamental principle of English liberty.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): On a point of order. I do not recognise in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), or in the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), the case in its exactitude. It would be very unfortunate if hon. Members draw deductions when the hon. and learned Member said that he had no knowledge of the case at all. It would be better to stay on this matter on the response I made to the Leader of the Opposition, namely, that I should like a further opportunity to examine the representations made on the Floor of the House. I certainly would not be in a position to make any further statement myself, because I do not think that it would be right.

Mr. Fletcher: Whether or not the Home Secretary is in a position to make a statement today, one of the reasons we are objecting to the Motion is the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to accede to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that a statement should be made about this tomorrow. I can well understand the Home Secretary's desire to investigate the facts. He will have plenty of time to do that between now and tomorrow, but this seems to be

a matter of such cardinal importance to British liberties that it would be wrong for us to adjourn before the matter has been cleared up.
The significance of the matter is this. It is fundamental to British conceptions of justice that any accused person should have the right of complete consultation with his professional advisers, and that those consultations should be privileged. It appears from the Question and Answer in the House today that telephone communications between an accused person and his professional advisers—

Mr. R. A. Butler: On a point of order. Certain disciplinary proceedings are in progress under the Bar Council. I really think that it might prejudice the case if we were to allow a discussion. I am not running away from this issue, but it is in the interests of all of us to protect a particular case and a particular person. As the hon. and learned Member for Northampton said, he has no knowledge of the case at all. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Islington, East has any knowledge of the case. Therefore, while I respect their arguments about not adjourning, which may be in order, I would strongly regret any further pursuit of this case at the moment.

Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand how that is a point of order: but that is a matter for you.
I wish to give further reasons to show why I am opposed to the Motion. I am not concerned with this particular case. I am concerned with certain reasons which the Home Secretary gave in answer to the Question. What the Home Secretary said, and what shocked me so much, was this. He talked about public interest and public order. He seemed to me to be saying that there were circumstances in which considerations of public order and public interest would justify the police in tapping telephone conversations and reporting them to some other person. Those reasons given by the Home Secretary were the very reasons given in Nazi Germany and in Communist Russia for the vilest excesses of any police State.

Mr. S. Silverman: And by Charles I.

Mr. Fletcher: And by Charles I. It shocked me to hear the Home Secretary, so far from appearing to understand the


fundamental principles of English liberty, appearing to be giving as his reasons for police action in the interests of the State the very reasons which Hitlerite Germany and Communist Russia have given over and over again.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member is now getting away from the Question before the House. He is introducing a much larger topic which does not seem to me to be relevant.

Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I want to explain what has shocked me. I have been brought up to believe—

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Member. He wants to explain what?

Mr. Fletcher: I want to explain the reasons I am opposed to this Motion. I am opposed to the House adjourning for as long as two and a half weeks until what I regard as a matter of fundamental importance to the British public, touching questions of the liberty of the subject, has been satisfactorily resolved. I have heard in this House for the first time suggestions from the Home Secretary which have shocked me. I am not concerned with the application of this particular case. I am concerned with the principle and with the implications of statements made by the Home Secretary, implications which go to the very roots of British justice and which, in my opinion, ought not to be left unresolved for as long as two and a half weeks.
If what the Home Secretary said is right, one of the consequences is that the police will be able to claim the privilege—and apparently now are claiming the privilege—of tapping communications between an accused person and his professional advisers and of reporting those communications to the police or to the prosecution or to a third party. That offends against one's whole conception of British justice.
As a solicitor, I have telephone conversations with clients every day of the week. Many members of my profession communicate with clients on the telephone. Are we to assume from now onwards that the police claim the right to listen to those conversations?

Mr. Lipton: Yes.

Mr. Fletcher: To make tape recordings?

Mr. Lipton: Yes.

Mr. Fletcher: And to pass them on, without the consent of anybody, to the Director of Public Prosecutions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has explained to the House that he considers these matters of great importance. We all accept that. He has given a very lucid explanation why they are important, but now he is arguing the merits of the case itself, and that is not before us.

Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing the merits. I am stating facts which seem to me of such fundamental importance that I am arguing that, this matter now having been put in doubt—a matter which goes to the whole roots of personal liberty in this country—it is so grave and serious that it should be resolved one way or the other before the House adjourns.
I am arguing that we ought not to accede to the Motion and that we ought
not to adjourn for two and a half weeks. I think that it would be a great dereliction of our duties as Members of Parliament and, if I may say so with great respect, a great dereliction of your duty as Speaker guarding all the liberties of the British people. I am arguing that it would be a dereliction of duty on the part of those—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that my duty comes into this. The Question is whether, tomorrow, we should adjourn until 25th June. It is a question for the House to decide. The hon. Member has made clear why he objects to the Motion, but he was proceeding to deal with a matter which is not before us.

Mr. Fletcher: I am trying to argue that we should not adjourn. I am trying to convince the House and the Government, and you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be wrong for us to adjourn until this matter has been cleared up. It would be wrong for this House to adjourn and allow this grave matter of constitutional importance to remain in doubt for as long as two and a half weeks.
Rather than to allow that to happen, I hope that we shall have an opportunity before Tuesday fortnight of ventilating this matter, and of enabling the Home Secretary to give the facts of the case and to reflect on what I hope he will find was


a very ill-considered reply to questions. In that way public anxiety may be relieved, the matter put in its true perspective and the Home Secretary be able to give us a considered and informed opinion of what the practice is, not only in regard to this particular case, but in regard to police habits of tapping telephone conversations and reporting them to outside persons.
For those reasons, I would strongly oppose any attempt to adjourn the House until we have had a satisfactory explanation from the Home Secretary of how he proposes to deal with this matter.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: My hon. Friends are naturally concerned, as I think the whole House is, about the incident which was brought up at Question Time today. We are in some difficulty, because we do not know all the facts about the case. I think we are entitled to ask that before we adjourn for the Whitsun Recess a further statement should be made.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, who has built up for himself in recent months a well-deserved reputation as a humane and progressive Home Secretary, if he would give us an undertaking to do everything in his power to make a further statement tomorrow morning. It might not be possible for him to make a complete and final statement, but he would help us all a good deal if he could, in particular, cover the matter of the disclosure of this information to the Bar Council. That seems the gravest aspect of this matter. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier that there were precedents for similar bodies being informed. We have not been told what they were.
If the right hon. Gentleman will give us the assurance that he will do everything he can to come to the House and make, at any rate, an interim statement, that would be some advance, and we would be able to go away with the feeling that the matter had at least been properly aired and some progress had been made towards its clearing up.

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I make a short reply to the debate? First, I had better take the points made by the Leader of the Opposition on the matter to which references were made by the hon. and

learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and the hon. Members for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and Brixton (Mr. Lipton).
I would rather not make any further observation on this case this afternoon. The hon. Member for Islington, East, said that I made an inaccurate statement, or something of that sort. I gave the facts to the House.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I said that it was ill-considered.

Mr. Butler: There was nothing ill-considered in it at all. I gave the facts to the House, and the supplementary answers were, I think, quite legitimate. I would like to take up the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition to consider this matter with my advisers, which is the only right thing to do in a case of this gravity. That I will do.
What the right hon. Gentleman wants me to do further than that is to give an undertaking that I will make a statement on this matter tomorrow morning. I cannot give a guarantee about that.

Mr. Gaitskell: If possible.

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman says "if possible". I will see whether it is possible to make a statement. If I cannot make a statement I will inform the Leader of the Opposition later this evening of the position I am in in regard to the case. If I find that there is nothing more to say, I do not think that I can say any more. If I can do so, I will try to make it clear. In either case, I will communicate with the Leader of the Opposition later this evening. I cannot say "before the House rises", because I am not clear how long it will sit. That is the best I can do on the case.
I could answer many points that have been put in references to the case, but I think it would possibly be wrong to do so without further consideration of what is obviously regarded by hon. Members as a grave matter. I can say, in reservation, that some of the references to the case, about the widening of a practice like that, have been exaggerated and, secondly, that the gravity of the case has been underestimated. Otherwise, I would not have given the answer I did when it was brought to my attention. Perhaps, on the basis of that, hon. Members will leave the matter in my hands and I will


do my best to communicate with the Leader of the Opposition later this afternoon. I am sorry that I cannot communicate with each of his hon. Friends, but no doubt we shall be able to put it about.

Mr. Paget: The right hon. Genaleman's answer appeared to me to indicate—I may have been quite wrong—that the police claim a right to intercept communications between a criminal and his solicitor or between the solicitor and the barrister with regard to that criminal case. It is that there should be any conception of that kind that is worrying me.

Mr. Butler: I can say immediately—this is the only further observation I want to make on this case—that the matter refers exclusively to the authority of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State, and one particular Secretary of State. We must take the responsibility, those of us who are Secretaries of State. This practice must not be regarded as being freely used by the police. This is reserved to one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State, in this case the Home Secretary. In regard to the responsibility of the police, I hope that that responsibility will be put squarely on the Secretary of State.
On the other matters raised during the debate the hon. Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and Ogmore (Mr. Padley) referred in particular to the Shops Bill. The hon. Member for Ogmore was very eloquent and persuasive. I believe that was quite genuine, because the hon. Member is genuinely disappointed that the Bill is not going through. The hon. Member for Uxbridge spoke, I believe, with some knowledge of the Co-operative movement which, I am aware, was in favour of the Bill. It is also the case that a considerable number of employers and employees were in favour of the Bill.
This is not an occasion when I should go into the merits or demerits of the Shops Bill. The Bill is not confined solely and exclusively to the improvement of hours and conditions, but refers to other aspects, such as Sunday closing. It runs to about 75 Clauses and is one of the most delicately compensative Bills—I refer to the weighting of the drafting as between one Clause and another—that I have ever had the fortune or misfortune to read.
The Bill is susceptible to more Amendments than any Bill I have seen. Almost any foodstuff can be omitted or inserted in the course of the discussion, as the Bill raises the whole question of Sunday closing both in England and Scotland. There is the particularly difficult case of the Jewish barber in Scotland. It is a Bill which the meanest intelligence could see would require some months to consider.
I am accused of base treachery in abandoning the Bill, but I have done nothing to stop the passage of the Bill in another place. It took six months for the Bill to pass through another place. Bills go through another place far more quickly than they pass through a Standing Committee of this House. It was on 16th May that it returned to us after being in the House of Lords since 14th November.
I had to consider whether there was a chance of getting the Bill through a Standing Committee. On examining that question we came to the conclusion from all the information at our disposal of the many and varied views, some pro and some very much opposed to the Shops Bill—and not only on one side of the House—that it was impossible to envisage its passage into law this Session.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Who would have opposed it on the opposition side of the House?

Mr. Butler: We had to decide whether to let the House know that it was impossible to get the Bill through, or whether it should linger on and probably have the result of an unfortunate foundering or a slow, lingering death in Standing Committee. I thought it was fairer and squarer to tell the House that there was not a chance of getting it through.
The question arises whether, if we had sat for another week, we could have got the Bill through. On my information, I am satisfied that one extra week would not have made any difference to getting the Bill through. On the information in my possession, having taken the advice of many hon. Members, and having regard to the fact that Amendments which were moved in another place would no doubt have been moved in Committee in this House, I think there is absolutely no chance, considering our financial business and one


or two new Bills which we have been obliged to introduce into the Sessional programme at a late stage, of getting the Bill through.

Mr. Beswick: It is true that in this Bill there are 75 Clauses and that they are delicately compensated, as the right hon. Gentleman said. It may also be that they refer to Jewish barbers in Scotland, but all that was known at the time the Bill was introduced in another place. All this was perfectly well known to Her Majesty's advisers on 26th March and quite categorical assurances were then given that the Government intended to proceed with the matter. What happened between 26th March and 16th May is that the Government changed their mind. The only conclusion that could be drawn is that the pressure to abandon the Bill has been too much for the Government.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman forget that the Government forced the Rent Bill through Committee?

Mr. Butler: I dare say we did, but that started earlier and we had an opportunity of putting it through.
It is my duty to face the facts quite plainly. I do not believe that there would have been support for a Guillotine on this Bill. However desirable that might have been, I do not believe it would have been possible. Under the circumstances, I am quite convinced that at this stage of the Session, however much Ministers on behalf of the Government have stated Government intentions in regard to this Bill, it would not have been possible to get it through in the time.
The main gravamen of the case of those who do not want us to adjourn for a fortnight's holiday is that we should have had time to deal with the Shops Bill. I claim that one extra week would not have made the difference. That is why I took the decision quite squarely, and I stand by it.

Mr. David Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in March this year he used the argument of the Shops Bill going through the House as an excuse for not introducing legislation to deal with the railway section of the Gowers Report? He has

been telling me all the time that legislation on the Gowers Report was being held up because the Government were introducing the Shops Bill. Now they are doing neither.

Mr. Butler: The railways Bill is another controversial point, but it is a Bill which also is important. There are conditions on the railways which we all know need attention, but I cannot give any further undertaking about that Bill today. The Opposition have asked for a debate on the Gowers Reports on the Tuesday when we return. I suggest that that is the proper time to review progress on the Gowers legislation, so much of which stands to the credit of the Government. I would prefer that we adjourn our discussion of the Gowers proposals until the 25th.
Under the Administration of the party opposite, in 1949 and 1951, we had long Whitsun Recesses.

Mr. Beswick: And we got legislation through.

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), when he was leading the House as Lord President of the Council, said that he was always in favour of a longer Whitsun Recess. He was perfectly right. He said that it was not a question of hon. Members having a holiday. It is not necessarily a holiday; many are going to their constituencies and are going to have a well-needed rest after a very protracted and hard-working Session. In my opinion, it is not only the time of the House that matters, but the quality of the work that it does.
Always, when anybody is leading this House, and has an opportunity to give the House an extra week at Whitsun, he should do so. I have done so, I believe without doing any violence to the conscience of the hon. Member for Ogmore and the cause in which he so much believes. Had we been prejudicing any particular matter, we would not have done it.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: The right hon. Gentleman has undertaken, very properly I think, to consider whether, tomorrow, some time could be given to discussing the case of civil liberties. I should like to draw your personal attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to


the fact that I have given notice to raise a matter of policy involving civil liberties. I would respectfully ask that in considering the allocation of time you will bear in mind the fact that the question of civil liberties is important, no matter which case we raise.

Mr. Butler: May I say, in answer to the right hon. Member, that I was not envisaging that I should interfere with the discretion of the Chair in regard to time for a debate. What I said was that I would respond to the request of the Leader of the Opposition, who asked whether a further elucidating statement could be made. I think, as the right hon. Member agrees, that I must leave to the Chair the allocation of time, because that is the prerogative of the Chair. I shall stick to the undertaking I gave to the Leader of the Opposition.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 25th June.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL

Order for Third Reading read.— [Queens Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time. —[Mr. Vosper.]

4.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I think it is appropriate that the voice of Scotland should be heard in support of this Bill before it leaves the House. This is a Great Britain Measure, agreed at every step with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. There are no Scottish Clauses and there is no special Scottish implication.
Only yesterday the House completed a Scottish Bill of vital importance and interest to the Scottish people alone. I am sure that the House will agree that it was more in Scotland's interests that as Minister concerned directly in both Bills I was right to concentrate my efforts on the purely Scottish Bill and to leave this important Great Britain Measure to the expert guidance of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who is best fitted to speak for Great Britain as a whole. I have read all the speeches made on both sides of the House, both in Committee of Ways and Means and on all previous stages of the Bill.
The basic issue is simple to state and not so simple to solve. The cost of this great service of which the nation is so proud has been rising steeply from its initial figure, which exceeded the original estimates of the planners upon whose plans the conception of the National Health Service was based. Since then, year by year, an ever-increasing cost has been met by the nation as taxpayers and, to some extent, by increased charges.
Should we call a halt in this steady expansion when there is still so much to be done? If not, who is to meet the increase in this unexpectedly heavy burden now carried by us all—as taxpayers to the extent of 80 per cent., as stamp payers to the extent of 5·8 per cent., and as patients who pay for making use of the service to the extent of 5·5 per cent.?
Of course, the National Health Service must be maintained. The differences of opinion between us are not about whether we should maintain and advance the Service, but how we should do so. I think we have taken the best course in bringing, as the Bill does, our share as taxpayers of this ever-increasing burden down from 80 per cent. to 74 per cent. and our share as stamp payers up from about 6 per cent. to 11½ per cent. and, therefore, more in line with the share of the total cost borne by the stamp payers in the first year of operation of the Service.
To me the reasons for supporting the policy of the Bill are overwhelming. They are, first, that the nation accepted the principle of a flat-rate contribution when the scheme was inaugurated and we are not breaking fresh ground. Secondly, the original division of the burden between taxpayer and contributor has slipped in favour of the contributor. Thirdly, there has been a substantial increase in the wages and earnings of contributors since the contributions were first fixed. Fourthly, we all accept the fact that additional money has to be found and that the alternatives to increasing the stamps could only be either the payment by the taxpayer of more than was considered his fair share, or a greater payment by the patients in the form of increased or new charges, or diminished service. We badly need a better appreciation by the public of the facts about the National Health Service, and that will to some extent be achieved by separating the contributions.
Then there is the disallowance of the health contributions as an expense for Income Tax purposes. It could have been done before and perhaps it should have been done.
In the current year we estimate that we shall be spending £690 million on the National Health Service, of which Scotland's share will be £73 million. Does that huge sum represent a continuation of the trend pointed out by the Guillebaud Committee, the trend that over the years the National Health Service was receiving an ever-diminishing slice of the national cake? Let me give the House the figures. They are compiled on the same general basis as those used by the Guillebaud Committee, but they are

United Kingdom figures and not figures for England and Wales which the Guillebaud Committee used. Unlike the Guillebaud Committee they are based on calendar years.
In 1950, the cost to the public funds of the National Health Service current expenditure as a percentage of the gross national product was 3·85 per cent. By 1954, the last year touched on by the Guillebaud Committee, it was down to 3·17 per cent. In 1955 it had risen to 3·25 per cent. and in 1956 it was 3·33 per cent.; so the trend has reversed in the last two years
In spite of that, some hon. Members felt, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, on 20th May:
The fact is that, although we have been spending more money, we have had no extension of the Service in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1957; Vol. 570, c. 964.]
I am sorry the hon. Member is not present. As the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) knows, that is not true.
The number of hospital beds in Scotland rose from over 61,000 in 1953 to over 63,000 in 1956, an increase of almost 2,000. That compares with an increase of about 4,000 in England and Wales where the figures were over 478,000 in 1953 and over 482,000 in 1956. Again, comparing Scotland favourably with England, the number of new out-patients in Scotland rose from 1·8 million in 1953 to 2·2 million in 1956, an increase of 400,000. That compares with the figure of only 200,000 in England and Wales—6·7 million in 1953 and 6·9 million in 1956.
Finally, as an example of how increased expenditure has more than overtaken rising costs, I quote the Great Britain figures for expenditure on hospital buildings, in which Scotland has shared proportionately. Up to 1955–56 the average figure was just over £12 million; in 1956–57 the figure was just over £15½ million; but for 1957–58 the estimate is nearly £21 million. These last figures obviously show a real increase in the amount of work being done.
This Bill enables the nation to carry forward its plans for the expansion and improvement of the National Health Service without adding yet another tax


burden to the heaviest taxed people in the world. It is a wise Measure, and I commend it to the House.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I was interested in what the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was telling the House about the increased expenditure having in real terms outstripped rising prices. For a long time I have suspected that the Government, and the various Ministers of Health who have been in office since 1951, have been trying desperately to conceal the reality of the situation, which, in my view, is that the effect of their policies has been to produce a real reduction in the Service. I believe that the Bill is simply a means of shifting, within the existing financial ceiling, a proportion of the burden from the taxpayer to the individual in terms of a poll tax. That is something which hon. Members on this side of the House have objected to at all stages.
The Bill does nothing at all to meet the situation in which the services are being reduced. In considering the various arguments to which we have listened during earlier discussions, I read a speech by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in support of the Bill. He said:
I do not think that there is a single major resource or amenity connected with it"—
that is, with the National Health Service—
which is not more plentifully supplied by my right hon. Friend and his colleagues now than at any time since the war.
The hon. Gentleman went on:
There are now more real resources for the Health Service—for example, more nurses, more beds, more doctors, more health visitors, more district nurses and more midwives."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 1048.]
That is the argument we have heard throughout the discussions on the Bill.
In Yorkshire—

Sir Keith Joseph: Does the hon. Gentleman deny those facts which he has quoted from my speech?

Mr. Griffiths: Certainly. The hon. Member will realise that I chose a portion of his speech which is to my advantage, and of course I deny them.
I was about to say, though it may be the case in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, that it is not so in my case. It is exactly contrary in Yorkshire and the area presided over by the Manchester Regional Hospital Board. That is why I said during earlier discussions, and I say it again now, that it is an impertinence to ask my constituents and the people of Manchester, employers and employed alike, to make a higher contribution—through their National Insurance payments specifically reserved for National Health Service expenditure—for a Service which is, in fact, contracting.
If the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East doubts that it is contracting, I will tell him what is happening in Manchester. Would he be surprised to hear, for example, that at this moment the matrons of two Manchester hospitals have been told to engage no more nurses—though the hospitals are below establishment— because their wages cannot be met? One hospital management committee is currently obliged to consider—unless the Minister can find a remedy by providing the board with more cash—whether wards will have to be closed in a series of hospitals, including a most important cancer hospital. The chest clinic at the T.B. hospital, the casualty department at Wythenshawe hospital—I gladly name the hospital—and a series of wards are closing down.
I give the Minister fair warning that during the Whitsun Recess hon. Members on this side of the House who represent constituencies in various parts of the country—certainly that will include my own constituency—propose to examine this question in more detail. We shall appeal to those of our friends who have been working in hospital administration for the past few years to supply us with information so that we may come back to the House with specific and detailed examples to put before the Minister, and thereby confound the arguments advanced —I am sure in all sincerity—by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East and the Minister, week by week and month by month, in an effort to preserve the idea that the services are expanding whereas, in fact, they are diminishing.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not deny the statistics for Manchester, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not deny my statistics generally, because I can back


them up in every detail. They are absolutely true for the whole national scene. I may be wrong in one resource, but I say that all the major resources of the National Health Service are more plentifully supplied now than they were in the past. Does the hon. Gentleman ask us to believe that because Manchester has an absolutely splendid university, and therefore draws more from the taxpayers by way of the University Grants Committee, which we all welcome, its taxpayers and citizens should pay more taxation than a city which does not have a university? Surely, we have a "postalisation" of the social service charges in this country, so that payments, to the extent that they are by contribution, are spread evenly, and each area and service has to contend with the Minister for a fair share of those charges?

Mr. Griffiths: Naturally, I relate my argument to the part of the country which I know best, but I will give the hon. Gentleman this assurance. I will get my colleagues who have the honour to represent other parts of the City of Leeds, part of which the hon. Gentleman also represents, to examine the situation there. If there is an improvement in Leeds, we shall see and, if there is, all we can say is that the Ministry in its allocations to the various regional boards has, in some way, discriminated against the City of Manchester.
In any case, I say that what is now proposed by the Minister of Health does not in any way meet the position. The right hon. Gentleman is simply juggling about within the existing total expenditure. It is my case that this total sum, which we were told on Second Reading by the Minister exceeds that for 1949–50 in real terms by about £51 million, is completely inadequate not only to expand the service, but even to maintain it at its present level. I assure the Minister, despite all the denials of his right hon. and hon. Friends, that we shall return to this subject after the Recess week after week at Question Time to seek to extract from him the facts by giving him a whole catalogue of hospitals in detail in regard to the number of beds, the staff position and expenditure. I am confident that the results of our inquiries will substantiate

the case made by my hon. Friends and myself.
In conclusion, I say again that, despite all this juggling about within the total sum of expenditure, the Government will shortly be faced with a position in which they will be seeing all over the country a breakdown of the existing hospital services which will not be maintained at their present level. They will have to come back to the House with better proposals than they are putting before us at the moment. If they believe that a greater proportion of the financial burden of maintaining the Health Service should be transferred to the contributor through insurance contributions, let them come to the House and argue that, but, whatever they do and whatever happens in these next few weeks and months, I am convinced that the present sum earmarked for the service will clearly be proved to us in the near future to be totally inadequate to maintain the Service at its existing level.

5.3 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I was rather interested in finding at this late stage of the Bill that one of the three Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland made the short opening speech. He said that it seemed much better when we were dealing in Committee with a purely Scottish Bill that he should give his attention to it and leave his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to cope with this Bill right up to the last minute. Surely, that is no reason for a Scottish Minister having taken no part in the Second Reading or Committee stage of the Bill?
The Joint Under-Secretary of State is not the only Scottish Minister responsible for health and housing matters in Scotland. There is also the Secretary of State himself. The Joint Under-Secretary cannot tell us that the Secretary of State was so involved with the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Bill that he could not give any attention to this Bill, because he knows in very truth that the Secretary of State had little or nothing to do with the Housing Bill from Second Reading to Third Reading. It was on the Committee stage that the excuse was given that he was so busy with this Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am sure that we cannot discuss the Housing and Town Development


(Scotland) Bill on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Miss Herbison: I was only trying to illustrate a point. The Joint Under-Secretary had tried to excuse the fact that no Scottish Minister had taken part in the debate on this Bill before today, and the reason which he gave for saying that no Scottish Minister had taken part was that the Scottish Ministers were busy with a purely Scottish Housing Bill. I am trying to show—and, with all due respect. I think I am right in dealing with this point—that not all the Scottish Ministers were involved with the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Bill. This Bill is so important for Scotland, as well as for England and Wales, that I think we should have had a Scottish Minister present during part of the debate on it.

Mr. J. N. Browne: If the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) will do me the honour of reading what I said in winding up the Third Reading debate on the Scottish Housing Bill yesterday, she will find that I explained the position of my right hon. Friend quite clearly. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that my right hon. Friend's first duty is to Scotland, and these are very wide and very onerous duties. It would not have been right, in the interests of Scotland, for him to have sat in at various stages of this Bill when it is a purely United Kingdom Measure and when it has been so competently handled by my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Miss Herbison: That answer is most inadequate. On an important Bill last night, the Joint Under-Secretary gave excuses why the Secretary of State had not played his full part in it, and on this Measure today he tries to fob us off with the same excuse. The Scottish Office has two extra Ministers under a Tory Government, and yet we find that the Secretary of State and other Ministers are leaving important work affecting Scotland to be done, not by Scottish Ministers at all, but by Ministers for England and Wales. However, that is all I have to say about it.
Today, we see no reason at all for the provisions in the Bill. We gave our reasons for opposing it on Second Reading, when we tried to amend what was a very bad Bill to make it less bad, but the

Government refused to accept those Amendments. The Joint Under-Secretary on at least two occasions today has stressed the cost to the taxpayer of the National Health Service. He told us today at the beginning of his short brief that the cost had been rising steeply year after year, and that it was an ever increasing cost to the taxpayer. Near the end of his speech, he told us that without this Bill we could not have the expansion and improvement of the Service without adding an extra burden to the most heavily-taxed people in the world.
I know that in some nations people would rather have a National Health Service through taxation than the manner in which they get it at the present time. When one considers taxation in a country, one has also to consider at the same time what that taxation covers for individual members in each community. To turn only to the United States of America, how much better placed the majority of people there would be if the Health Service cost were met by taxation rather than by family after family finding, as they do now, that they are ruined if serious illness comes to their homes.
When we are talking about the burden of taxation, we ought to look to see what this taxation provides. I say again to the Joint Under-Secretary that if the main reason for these extra charges—and that was the whole tenor of his speech—was to be able to make cuts in taxation, it is important that we should turn to the Budget. I said on Second Reading that this was a matter for the Budget and not for a special Bill. The people who might have been relieved by cuts in taxation did not get them. This extra burden is placed on the very people who received no relief of taxation at all under the last Budget whereas the Surtax payers, who did not need the relief, received it. One cannot examine the Bill on Third Reading without putting side by side with its provisions those Budget provisions.
The Joint Under-Secretary quoted figures showing what part of the national gross product was going to the National Health Service. He told us that in 1950—this is for the whole of the United Kingdom—it was 3·85 per cent., that by 1954 it was down to 3·17 per cent. and that last year it was 3·33 per cent., still ·5 per cent. below what it was in 1950. An hon. Member opposite whispers to one


of his hon. Friends that it is coming up. But it still has not come up to the figure at which it stood in 1950 when no consideration at all was given to raising the contribution.
Another point made by the Minister in his opening speech today was that there had been wage rises. We have had that from the Minister of Health himself. But, again, one must put against those wage rises the increase in the cost of living and the increased contributions that have had to be paid for other purposes, to meet increased benefits, much of them due to the rise in the cost of living and all wholly due to the policy of this Government. By their failure to do anything about inflation the Government have created difficulty after difficulty for the lowest wage earner in the country who is going to be the person most penalised by the Bill.
It is because we feel so strongly on these matters that we are going to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. Neither the Minister of Health nor the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has attempted to argue that the extra contribution is going to be used this year to provide greater benefits. The Joint Under-Secretary gave us some figures. He told us about the increase in the number of new out-patients. He did not tell us about increased facilities for out-patients. I really do not know what the hon. Gentleman was trying to prove by those figures. Was he trying to prove that there were increased facilities, or was it just that more of our people were ill and that therefore these services were used to a greater extent?
When the hon. Gentleman makes a statement of that kind he ought to tell us what he is trying to prove by it. Nothing has been said at any stage of the Bill to the effect that the extra contribution to be paid will provide extra benefits and extra facilities under the National Health Service. It is a mean poll tax placed particularly on the shoulders of those least able to bear it. We know that it has been done simply to better the position of the Surtax payers, and we say quite clearly to the Government that there are many people—some of my own friends are among them—who would far rather be taxed in order to ensure that all our people, particularly those who are less able to care for them-

selves, are properly cared for. The Bill is part and parcel of the Tory philosophy, and we object to it most strongly.

5.14 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I may be infringing on some understanding between the two Front Benches, but I want briefly in the few minutes that I propose to speak to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) in regard to the handling of the Bill by the Scottish Ministers. Not till well on in the process of the Bill through its various Parliamentary stages did we see hair or hide of any of the Scottish Ministers. Indeed, I commented at one stage that, in some regards, it might be just as wise for us to deal with the Minister of Health.
The intervention by the Joint Under-Secretary during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North urges me to make this point quite straight to him. I strongly object to the idea that the National Health Service in Scotland merely tags along behind the National Health Service in England and that it is desirable for the English and Welsh Minister, some time or other, to handle the affairs of the Scottish Health Service. If it were true that the principles and the administration of the Service are the same throughout the United Kingdom, as one would assume from the comments of the hon. Gentleman, then one wonders why there was ever a separate Act of Parliament in respect of the Service for Scotland.
As we know, the principles in both countries are appreciably different, and the practice can be substantially different. We in Scotland are very proud of the fact that we have variations compared with the English practice in different fields. Though they may sometimes not be in advance of the English practice in social administration in certain respects, they are certainly very much in advance of it in other respects. It is certainly true that in health matters we in Scotland, with our proud medical traditions, could and should be well ahead of England in Health Service practice.
I certainly think that in a Bill of this sort we should have heard something before today from the Secretary of State or the Joint Under-Secretary regarding


the administration of the Bill in relation to Scotland. I do not think that we can accept the doctrine that the Joint Under-Secretary can simply shuffle on to the Minister of Health the responsibilities of Scotland in regard to the Bill or in regard to the administration of the Service in Scotland as a whole. We have seen that happen in recent negotiations with the British Medical Association, although. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I know that is quite outside the scope of the Bill. There, too, we have seen Scottish affairs handled in the same way as they are being handled under the Bill. My comments are not strictures born of party prejudice; they are engendered by a great deal of concern in this House about the Scottish Health Service.
I do not like the Bill. I think that it is all wrong. Although hon. Members opposite may disagree with the views expressed on this side of the House, I think they ought to understand why we disagree with them. They ought to give us the credit of realising that many on this side of the House object to the contributory element being expanded. We object also to it being made a principle of the method by which this social service is financed.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will credit us with believing these things and will understand why we stated our previous objections to the Bill so clearly. To say, as the Minister has, that the present Tory Government by behaving in conformity with the past Labour Government are thereby discharging their social obligations is to my mind a false argument and one which cannot stand the test of time.

5.20 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Dennis Vosper): It will be remembered that on 20th May this House attempted to give the Bill its Third Reading without a debate. Without wishing to give offence to those who have contributed to the debate today, I am not sure that the House did not show wisdom on that occasion. The arguments around this Bill have been discussed on several occasions, and they concern two very limited points—the establishment for the first time of a separate National Health Service contribution and the making of an increase in the value of the contribution.
It seems to me, listening to the speeches today, that whereas hon. Members on both sides of the House maintain their belief in the National Health Service, and wish to see its expansion, hon. Members opposite are not prepared to back their belief in the requisite expenditure with the provision of the necessary income. That seems to me to be the great difference between the two sides of the House.
This is an attempt to provide the National Health Service with a stability of income which I would have thought hon. Members opposite who have held office would have welcomed. It is possibly for that reason that the speeches today have been directed not so much to the method of financing proposed in the Bill as to the volume of expenditure on the Health Service. Time and time again we have been told that the Government are not advancing the cause of the National Health Service. That just is not true. As I told the House on Second Reading, during the last five years, even when allowance is made for changes in the Consumer Price Index, there has been an increase in the amount devoted to the Health Service of £65 million in real terms.
Today, the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) suggested that from the point of view of staff employed by the National Health Service there had been a worsening of the position. But, as has been said on more than one occasion, that is just not true. So far as I know, in every category in the National Health Service there has been an increase in recent years. The hon. Gentleman cited the case of Manchester. I am glad that he is to look into this and ascertain the facts for himself. I happen to be spending two days in Manchester next week examining exactly the same problem, and I shall be ready for the hon. Gentleman when we return after the Recess.
Can the hon. Gentleman deny that there has been an expansion in the staff of all the Manchester hospitals during this period? He has suggested that the hospital management committee may eventually decide to restrict staff recruitment. That is entirely different from saying that there has been no increase.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I did not say that the total number of people employed in


the Health Service was less. What I said was that the services were being reduced and that one hospital management committee alone is having now to consider the closing, in a number of hospitals in one part of the city, out-patients' departments, chest clinics and the inside wards of the ear hospital. Therefore, I argued that this was a reduction in the service which Manchester had enjoyed under all Governments since 1948. I am delighted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is going to Manchester to look into this. I hope that his visits will at least result in the restoration of the Service to the level enjoyed under the Labour Government.

Mr. Vosper: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, because he gave the House the impression that there had been a deterioration in the service in Manchester, and I do not believe that to be the case. There is merely a proposal under consideration to restrict recruiting in the future. I shall be glad to debate this matter with the hon. Gentleman on a future occasion. All the evidence at my disposal is that the statistics, be it of patients treated or of staff employed, show that there has been a steady increase in the service provided.
I could understand the logic of the argument of the Opposition if they were opposed to any contribution on the part of the insured person, but they do not take that view. Indeed, the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), during the Second Reading debate, asked her right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) whether he would agree to the abolition of the original contribution. So far, we have had no opinion expressed as to whether that should be done. It seems completely Illogical to be in agreement with the principle of a contribution, but not to allow that contribution to play its part in the expansion of the National Health Service.

I would have found it much more difficult to resist the argument of the Opposition had they pressed for the abolition of the original contribution which they themselves introduced.

It has been suggested that this increase in the contribution will allow for no further increase in the National Health Service. My estimates and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland do, in fact, allow for a further increase during the current year—an increase both in hospital building and in the maintenance of all branches of the Service. This contribution will play its part in allowing that expansion to take place.

I was a little surprised to hear hon. Members opposite complain of the attitude of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Throughout the preparation and discussion of the Bill I have always had the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I sat here for two or three hours in Committee listening to complaints that there had been no intervention by the Scottish representative. Today, my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has put before the House the argument in favour of the Third Reading of the Bill, and I am grateful to have his support.

The Government maintain that this modest Bill—and that is all it is—will allow the development of the National Health Service to continue, and I am sure that the conclusion that my hon. Friends must draw is that the Opposition are not prepared to back their fine words about their belief in the Health Service with deeds. For that reason, I hope the House will now give the Bill its Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time: —

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 191.

Division No. 141.]
AYES
[5.25 p. m


Agnew, Sir Peter
Barlow, Sir John
Black, C. W.


Altken, W. T.
Barter, John
Body, R. F.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Baxter, Sir Beverlev
Bossom, Sir Alfred


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.


Arbuthnot, John
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Boyle, Sir Edward


Armstrong, C. W.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Braine, B. R.


Ashton, H.
Bidgood, J. C.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Balniel, Lord
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Brooman-White, R. C.


Barber, Anthony
Bishop, F. P.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)




Bryan, P.
Holt, A. F.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hope, Lord John
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hornby, R. P.
Oakshott, H. D.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Horobin, Sir Ian
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Campbell, Sir David
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cary, Sir Robert
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Osborne, C.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howard, John (Test)
Page, R. G.


Cole, Norman
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Partridge, E.


Cooke, Robert
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cooper, A. E.
Hutchison. A. M. C. (Edinburgh, S.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Pitman, I. J.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Iremonger, T. L.
Pott, H. P.


Cunningham, Knox
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, J. Enoch


Currie, G. B. H.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Davidson, Viscountess
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)



D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Profumo, J. D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, M.


Drayson, G. B.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Renton, D. L. M.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kaberry, D.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Keegan, D.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Duthle, W. S.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kerr, H. W.
Sharples, R. C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Kershaw, J. A.
Shepherd, William


Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Kimball, M.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kirk, P. M.
Smithers, Peter (Winchescer)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
Leather, E. H. C.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Leavey, J. A.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Fort, R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Freeth, Denzil
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gammans, Lady
Llewellyn, D. T.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Godber, J. B.
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Temple, John M.


Gomme-Duncan, Col, Sir Alan
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Goodhart, Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gough, C. F. H.
McAdden, S. J.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Gower, H. R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Vane, W. M. F.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Vickers, Miss Joan


Grimond, J.
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Wade, D. W.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wall, Major Patrick


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macolesfd)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hay, John
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Webbe, Sir H.


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Marshall, Douglas
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mathew, R.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Mawby, R. L.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hesketh, R. F.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Wood, Hon. R.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Woollam, John Victor


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Neave, Airey
Mr. Wills and Mr. Hughes-Young


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicholls, Harmar





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Boardman, H.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Clunie, J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bowles, F. G.
Coldrick, W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)


Awbery, S. S.
Brockway, A. F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Baird, J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D
Cove, W. G.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S)


Benson, G.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Beswick, Frank
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Blackburn, F.
Carmichael, J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Blyton, W. R.
Champion, A. J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)







Deer, G.
MacDermot, Niall
Royle, C.


Dodds, N. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Dye, S.
McGovern, J.
Short, E. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McInnes, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Skeffington, A. M.


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Simon
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Fienburgh, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Snow, J. W.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sorensen, R. W.


Gibson, C. W.
Mellish, R. J.
Sparks, J. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Messer, Sir F.
Steele, T.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mikardo, Ian
Stonehouse, John


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Monslow, W.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Grey, C. F.
Moody, A. S.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mort, D. L.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hannan, W.
Moss, R.
Swingler, S. T.


Hastings, S.
Moyle, A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hayman, F. H.
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Oram, A. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Herbison, Miss M.
Orbach, M.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Oswald, T.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Padley, W. E.
Thornton, E.


Holmes, Horace
Paget, R. T.
Tomney, F.


Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Usborne, H. C.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Viant, S. P.


Hubbard, T. F.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Watkins, T. E.




Weitzman, D.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parkin, B. T.
West, D. G.


Hunter, A. E.
Paton, John
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pearson, A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Peart, T. F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wilkins, W. A.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Popplewell, E.
Willey, Frederick


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Prentice, R. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Probert, A. R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Kenyon, C.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Randall, H. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


King, Dr. H. M.
Rankin, John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lawson, G. M.
Redhead, E. C.
Woof, R. E.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reeves, J.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Red, William
Zilliacus, K.


Lewis, Arthur
Rhodes, H.



Lindgren, G. S.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. J. Taylor and 


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers


MacColl, J. E.
Ross, William



Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

SUPERANNUATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are certain preparations on hand for the arrival in this place of a messenger from another place, and I should like your guidance on this point. It is customary to slam the doors of this Chamber on the occasion of such a visit, and that is, presumably, because this House has a right to decide whether or not it will accept the invitation which is about to be delivered to it. I am asking, Mr. Speaker, whether there is any way of this House today avoiding the humiliation of having to go along and listen to the Royal Assent being announced to the Rent Bill, which brings such evil to my constituents.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order at all. All the matters to which the hon. Member has drawn attention will be well directed and looked after by the custodians of the doors of this House.

Mr. Charles Royle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that, on referring to Erskine May, page 569, we find that the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod signifies to the Commons that their attendance is desired, not commanded, in another place. In view of the fact that, day by day, some of us take parties round this House, and tell the story of the great tradition which dates from 1642, may I submit that this House might have an opportunity of debating whether it accedes to that request on this occasion?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The phraseology to which the hon. Member has drawn attention is quite proper. At the opening of Parliament, when Her Majesty is present, our presence is commanded, but on ordinary occasions it is desired. But that does not compel the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) or any hon. Member to go to the other place.

Mr. James Griffiths: I appreciate the position as you have put it, Mr. Speaker, but, since this question has been raised for the first time today, in my recollection, showing the strong feeling of the House and in the country,

as evidenced also in the by-elections, may I ask, in view of the fact that the country does not want the Bill, whether the Leader of the House will not now withdraw it?

Mr. Speaker: I think that this House must follow its accustomed practice.

5.38 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

An Hon. Member: Why?

Mr. Powell: That is what I am about to explain.
The Royal Commission on the Civil Service, which dealt with pay and conditions in the Service and reported in 1955—

ROYAL ASSENT

5.39 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:
1. Export Guarantees Act, 1957.
2. House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1957.
3. Rent Act, 1957.
4. National Insurance Act, 1957.
5. Solicitors Act, 1957.
6. Dentists Act, 1957.
7. Magistrates' Courts Act, 1957.
8. Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act, 1957.
9. Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957.
10. Naval and Marine Reserves Pay Act, 1957.
11. New Streets Act, 1951 (Amendment) Act, 1957.
12. Blyth Harbour Act, 1957.
13. Barclays Bank D.C.O. Act, 1957.
14. Cattledown Wharves Act, 1957.
15. Marine Society Act, 1957.
16. City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1957.
17. Sunderland Corporation Act, 1957.

SUPERANNUATION BILL

5.53 p.m.

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Powell: The Priestley Commission on the Civil Service reported in 1955 in favour of a substantial improvement in the conditions under which a gratuity is awarded to unestablished and part-time civil servants who leave their employment, or to their relatives after they die. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated in September of last year that although at that moment it was not possible to implement those recommendations he hoped that it would be possible very soon to consider them favourably. That assurance was repeated earlier this year by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and is put into effect by the Bill.
The conditions of gratuity for unestablished civil servants are that they qualify after seven years' service for a gratuity of one week's pay for each year's service. The first Clause of the Bill makes a very substantial increase in those gratuities, exactly in accord with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. In future, the qualifying period will be five years' service, and service will count towards gratuity on the following scale: one week for each of the first five years, two weeks for each of the second five years, and four weeks for every year after the tenth. Therefore, it will be evident to the House that the amounts of these gratuities, where a temporary civil servant has served for any substantial number of years, will be, under the Bill, very much larger than they are at present.
There is one respect, however, in which the Bill departs from or rather adds to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. That is to be found in the proviso to Clause 1 (1), which imposes an upper limit of one year's pay to the amount of the gratuity which can be earned in accordance with the terms of the Bill.
There are two main considerations which have led the Government to propose that there should be some upper limit of this kind to the amount of the gratuity. In the first place, there may be exceptional cases in which, if there were

no upper limit, 120 or 130 weeks' pay might go to make up the amount of the gratuity. I am sure that it would be generally felt that a lump sum, which incidentally is tax-free, of an amount exceeding two years' salary was a disproportionate sum by way of gratuity for this purpose.
Perhaps more important is the relationship between these gratuities and those payable to the widows of established civil servants who die before reaching the retiring age. If there were no such upper limit as is proposed in the Bill, the result would follow that many unestablished civil servants ceasing to be employed would receive a higher gratuity than would go to the widow of an established civil servant with the same length of service. The imposition of an upper limit of one year's pay to the amount of the gratuity secures that the overlap between the death gratuity to the widow of the established civil servant and this gratuity to the unestablished civil servant is avoided.
The Royal Commission recommended that this change should be made, when Parliament decided upon it, from the current date. That, indeed, was the recommendation of the staff side in its evidence to the Royal Commission. That is the course which has been taken in the Bill, which brings the new scale of gratuities into effect from 15th May, which was the date on which the intention to legislate in this way was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge). The purpose of the announcement on that date, in advance of the presentation of the Bill, was, of course, to avoid the embarrassment which might arise both to a Department and to civil servants if it were not known in advance on what date the new arrangements would come into effect, so that the decision as to when an appointment was to be terminated might have been influenced one way or the other by considerations of the change in the gratuity scale. It was simply for this purpose that the announcement was made on 15th May before the presentation of this Bill, and why in consequence that date is written into the Bill as the date of commencement.
It is indeed logical that this change should be made from the current date. It is a further improvement which succeeds many that have gone before in the conditions of service of unestablished and part-time civil servants. It has no relation to general wage conditions or to the current value of money, but is simply a further advance in the improvement of the conditions of service of the unestablished and part-time servants of the Crown. That is the main purpose of the Bill and is effected by Clause 1, which amends the Superannuation Act of 1949 so as to bring the new scales into effect.
I now come to the minor provisions which are to be found in Clauses 2 and 3. From time to time in the past the State has taken over a new branch of administration or the provision of a new service, and has taken into its employment those who previously were providing that service with monies only partly derived from the public purse. In those cases, it has been necessary to make specific provision to ensure that the employees who came over into the Civil Service were able to count towards their eventual superannuation their previous service in the same role.
The 1948 Superannuation Act accordingly made specific provision for a series of new services which had been taken over into the Civil Service, having previously been outside its scope. Without such specific provision, it would have been impossible for the earlier service of those employees to be counted. The National Assistance Board is one of several cases in point. In doing so. however, it has happened that instances have been overlooked of employees in exactly the same position as those who have been covered by legislation, and who certainly ought to have been dealt with at the same time, but who for one reason or another were missed. Two cases which are outstanding at the moment is that of certain grades employed at the Roehampton Hospital and that of certain employees of the National Physical Laboratory.
Between the years 1925 and 1939 certain employees of the Roehampton Hospital were paid only partly out of funds provided by the public. Consequently, in order to give them superannuation rights after they became members of the Civil Service from 1939 onwards, legislation

was required as I have explained. That legislation is still outstanding. The employees of the National Physical Laboratory, before it became part of the Government service in April, 1918, have also been left in the same position, though the rights have in practice been accorded to them extra-statutorily during the last three or four years.
The alternative was either to provide specifically in this Bill for those cases which had come to notice and which remained as anomalies to be dealt with, or else to make some general provision whereby the Treasury, subject to proper safeguard and definition, could deal not only with those instances but with any others of the same kind which happened to have been overlooked, and with any others of the same kind which may arise in future.
The proposition I am putting to the House is that it is more convenient, and indeed fairer, to those who may be concerned to do this by a general provision. Once an opportunity to legislate has been missed, it is always difficult to find another chance, and in the interval a section of civil servants may be left in an unfair and anomalous position. I would suggest to the House, therefore, that Clause 2, which will enable the Treasury to make orders subject to the negative procedure, so as to cover the cases which I have mentioned, and others which may arise in future or be discovered in future analogous to them, is the best way to proceed. It is the intention, as soon as this Measure reaches the Statute Book, to make an order to cover the employees I have mentioned of the Roehampton Hospital and the National Physical Laboratory.
Clause 2, however, will not help certain former employees of the Imperial War Graves Commission who have been placed in an unfair position for something like a generation as a result of an administrative oversight in the early 1920's. In the early 1920's the Joint Substitution Board, which in those days was endeavouring to find employment for ex-Service men in the Government service, placed a considerable number of ex-Service men with the Imperial War Graves Commission under the impression, which was shared by all concerned at the time, that it was part of the Civil Service. In fact, it was not, has not been and is


not now part of the Civil Service. Consequently these employees cannot treat their service with the Imperial War Graves Commission as unestablished service in the Civil Service. Many of them have, since the 1920's, actually joined the Civil Service and in many cases have become established in it.
As the House is aware, in the 1940's great improvements were made both in the system of gratuities for unestablished civil servants and in the calculation of unestablished service for superannuation purposes. These civil servants, and these alone, found themselves, as a result of the circumstances I have described, excluded from the benefits of those improvements since the late war. Clause 3 of the Bill will accordingly put this injustice finally to rights by enacting that their service with the Imperial War Graves Commission shall be counted as though it had been service in the Civil Service.
I notice that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) is present. I take this opportunity of congratulating him on having at last succeeded in getting a provision on its way to the Statute Book for which he has exerted great pressure over many years. I believe it will be a satisfaction to him to see the injustice done to many who were in former years, his colleagues remedied in this way.
This is a pleasant Bill for a Financial Secretary to be able to present to the House, and I find at least as much satisfaction in commending its minor provisions to the House as the major provision in Clause 1. For we are all aware how difficult it is, when the great machinery of legislation is necessary to meet the circumstances of, perhaps, a small group of men, to bring that machinery into action in a timely and effective way.
I hope, therefore, that both as an implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission for improved gratuity, and as a means of righting the position of certain groups of civil servants, the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: It is very pleasing indeed to be able to compliment the Financial Secretary upon the way in which he has intro-

duced this very important Bill. My particular interest is in Clause 2. The governors of the Roehampton Hospital, of whom I have been chairman for a number of years, have had before them the problem of the position of members of the staff who in the interregnum from 1925 to 1939 were not covered by superannuation, which created certain administrative difficulties. I am very pleased indeed that the Bill, which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman as a "minor improvement", is before the House today.
Only a few of the staff at Roehampton are involved. I am sure that I can express their thanks to the hon. Gentleman for remedying their grievance after so many years. I took the matter up on behalf of the Governors in 1953. I was informed by the then Financial Secretary that nothing could be done without legislation, and at that time, unfortunately, the prospect of legislation was remote. I am glad to find that after the passage of a few years we now have the legislation before us and that the people in whom I am particularly interested have been brought within its scope.
I wonder whether the Financial Secretary could give us a little more information. I take it that the date of operation will be the date of the laying of the Regulations. I imagine that that rules out any retrospective action to cover those who have in the meantime left the service of Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton. Or is it possible, within the rules, to bring within the scope of the Regulations those who served the hospital before 1925, when they were under the then Ministry of Pensions, and who may, after 1939, again have been employed by the Ministry of Pensions, and who in the gap between were doing the same work but were paid directly by the governors and not by the Ministry, although the governors were acting as the agents of the Ministry for this purpose? I do not know whether any of them have left; they may all still be employed there. However, if any have left, I should like to know whether they can be brought within the scope of the Regulations. I should also like to know whether the whole of the time from 1925 to 1939 now counts towards reckonable service, or whether only a part of it does. These are the two main problems which will be worrying members of the staff at Roehampton.
I would again compliment the Minister upon bringing forward the Bill and remedying a long-standing grievance. I should also like to express personal thanks to him for his courtesy in sending me information about the Bill being brought forward today, for I confess that I had forgotten the letter which we sent to the Minister in 1953.

6.13 p.m.

Major Sir Frank Markham: I should like to add my congratulations to the Minister upon the Bill. It has been a matter of effort over many years to obtain a Bill of this kind, covering in particular employees of the Imperial War Graves Commission. I do not want to bore the House with personal reminiscences, but I should like to be allowed a moment or two to give the House an example of the way in which a great injustice to a few people can occur.
In 1917, when I was under age, I went off to the First World War with the British Red Cross, and was placed with what were then known as the Graves Registration Units. The work of registration and photographing of graves was of very great psychological value, and it has continued throughout the years since under the Imperial War Graves Commission, until I think we can now say that no country in the world looks after its heroic dead so splendidly or so sympathetically as we do, with our Dominions and Colonies all linked by the Imperial War Graves Commission. Every tribute is deserved for the work.
However, in the process a great injustice has been created. When the British Red Cross gave up the registration of graves and the Imperial War Graves Commission took over the work, the men who were then transferred, on their own volition, from the Army or the British Red Cross to the Commission were given specific pledges that they would become established civil servants with full Civil Service rights. That pledge was given in my hearing by no less a person than Major-General Sir Fabian Ware, the most distinguished head of the Commission.
Yet, through various mishaps and misadvertures—I will not say "through chicanery", because I am certain that such a thing was never in the mind of any Ministry—the upgrading never came

to pass. Now, after thirty-eight years, many men who have given a lifetime of service with the Commission in all parts of the world, find that at long last a grievance and an injustice are being remedied. I welcome the Bill with all my heart. At long last these people are brought within the scope of the Superannuation Acts. This ought to have happened as long ago as 1919.
I should like to say a word directly to the Financial Secretary. In my opinion, it is due entirely to his energy and drive that the anomaly and injustice has been remedied. I have taken the matter up persistently with Ministers from both parties in the past, but they have never been able to find a Parliamentary opportunity for such legislation. The Financial Secretary has achieved this, and I wish him to know how grateful I am for this. The injustice may, perhaps, be to a few men only, but it is nevertheless an injustice that has stood for more than a generation.
Even now I am not satisfied. There seems to have crept into Clause 3 a word which may be a cause of much pondering. The Clause says that those employed by the Imperial War Graves Commission who have served since 1934 "may" at last come within the scope of the Superannuation Acts. Why not "shall"? I hope that the Minister, having gone so far to remedy the wrongs, will go a step further and change "may" to the positive "shall."

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Harry Randall: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) will be overjoyed that the Bill will achieve what he has been seeking for so long. I think it will be accepted on all sides that this is an agreeable Measure, although it has its limitations. I am most grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary for finding time to bring forward the Bill, and I hope that it will pass through its stages very quickly and soon reach the Statute Book.
There are certain other things that I wish could have been included, but I am anxious to see the Bill on its way so that it will remedy a very great injustice which has been done to temporary staff over a number of years. The amount of the


gratuity had no relation whatsoever to the superannuation conditions for established staff. I believe that the amount was about 2 per cent. per annum of the pay, which was extremely low.
In comparison with the conditions which were available for the staff with superannuation facilities, it was a grave injustice for the temporaries to continue as they did. As a minor criticism, the fact that it was so low sometimes encouraged the over-employment of temporaries because it was cheaper to employ a temporary than to employ an established member of the staff. The Bill will go some way to curb in future the employment, or the expansion of the employment, of temporaries.
Many of us want to see the abolition of unestablishment, but those of us who know the Service will appreciate that while that is the millenium, there are many factors which come into operation and which will probably make it impossible to get 100 per cent. established staff. From time to time there are new blocks of work which necessitate the temporary employment of unestablished staff, but some of us believe that by the improvement of gratuities which are offered greater justice will be done to the unestablished staff which has to be maintained.
I am very pleased that the Minister has introduced the Bill. I am sorry that the ceiling has had to be fixed, but I recognise the difficulties. I am very pleased to note that anomalies which have existed for so long are to be put right in Clauses 2 and 3. I hope that we can have a speedy passage for legislation and will soon find it on the Statute Book.

6.21 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: As the senior civilian commissioner of the Imperial War Graves Commission and one who has served with it ever since 1923, I want to say a few words about the Bill. Of course, we are delighted at the change which is made by the Bill. At the same time, the House should realise that the Imperial War Graves Commission is the only imperial association in the whole of the Commonwealth. It is not a British institution at all. This country has no greater right

or interest in it than has any other member of the Commonwealth.
The employees are not employees of a British association or company at all. As a great Imperial body, we employ people of all nationalities and from all parts of all the different Dominions. At present we have far more employees who are citizens of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, and all the Colonies than we have British employees. Not only that, but in foreign countries we have vast numbers of French, Italian, German, and other foreign employees.
I assume, and I am sure that it is right, that the Bill can operate only for British subjects who have been in the employment of the Commission. Are other Dominions doing the same sort of thing? I hope that they are. Some may have already done this. I do not know whether the Commission's employees in Canada or Australia are and have been in the same position as the British employees. I do not expect an answer at once. I wish only to express the hope that what has been done and is being done for whoever will benefit from Clause 3 will spread throughout the whole Commonwealth to the benefit of all our employees, if it is of any assistance to them.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: It was a delight to see the face of the Financial Secretary wreathed in smiles when moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I was glad to find that the Bill provided him with some sweet relaxation from his heavy labours in connection with the Finance Bill. I should like to see that smile sustained more frequently by the hon. Member when he addresses the House. The Spartan look is very acceptable occasionally, but a pleasant smile does much good in relation to the psychology of the House.
The points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) raised a huge question. I should like to see the day when there is complete reciprocity and interchange-ability of superannuation rights for public servants throughout the whole of the Commonwealth and Colonies, but I am afraid that we have some time to wait before such an ideal can be realised. In recent years, however, we have travelled a great way in that direction.
The Bill can be supported with some enthusiasm. I am, of course, aware of the great fight of the Civil Service associations for an improvement in conditions of service on behalf of the temporary or unestablished staff in the Civil Service. In saying that I do not want to detract from the work done by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) towards those ends.
Clause 1 (2) says that gratuity may be paid in respect of a person in an unestablished capacity with less than five years' service who dies as a direct result of injury sustained or disease contracted on duty as if he had completed five years' service. I should like to think that that will be interpreted to mean that the provision can apply to any employee whose health breaks down in the course of his employment, without his necessarily having to prove that it directly arose from a disease contracted on duty, or from some injury which he sustained in the course of his employment. The Bill provides those superannuation rights which we have had in local government for a number of years, in fact since the passing of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, and I am very glad to see them now proposed in this Bill, which I hope will have a very happy and successful passage.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The Financial Secretary said that this was a pleasant Bill for him to introduce. It certainly is. It also has the advantage of being short and non-controversial. All three proposals in the Bill arise directly out of recommendations made by the Priestley Commission, the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, which sat between 1953 and 1955. They were all the subject of representations by staff associations and other interested persons. The House will find that recommendations on the scale of gratuities for unestablished staff are contained in paragraphs 744 onwards, and the proposals in Clauses 2 and 3 covered by observations and recommendations in paragraph 763 and 764.
So the House has the confidence and satisfaction of knowing that what it is asked to do is what the Royal Commission recommended should be done.

That is always a comfort to the House of Commons when it deals with complicated matters affecting the conditions of service of the public service. It also adds strength to the case of the civil servants themselves when their grievances or their desires for reform are the subject of close examination by a weighty and impartial Commission and are the subject of recommendations by it.
As a matter of fact, the scale of gratuities proposed in Clause 1 is more favourable than the Treasury itself suggested should be introduced when it gave evidence to the Royal Commission and when the Royal Commission observed that, in its view, the proposals of the Treasury for improvement in the scale of gratuities were not good enough and made its own. It is the Commission's proposals which we are now asked to approve in Clause 1.
As the Financial Secretary said, the new scale of gratuities will be distinctly more favourable than the old, and that is a good thing. The hon. Gentleman referred to the limit on the total amount of the gratuity which is embodied in the Bill but upon which the Royal Commission was silent. None of us can say whether the Royal Commission really did consider whether there should be a limit to the amount of the gratuity; it certainly said nothing about it. It may be that it was not fully aware of the difficulties and anomalies which might arise if there was not a ceiling. I am not complaining at all that the Bill provides for a maximum gratuity to be paid.
It should be most unusual for temporary civil servants to remain temporary in the Civil Service for many years. If their services are required for a long period, steps should be taken to absorb them into the establishment. If they are unsuited for that, or their work ceases, their services should be dispensed with. I think that it will be unusual for an unestablished civil servant to serve so long that he will suffer any injustice as a result of the limit on the amount of gratuity which the Financial Secretary proposes. The maximum gratuity can be obtained under the Bill after twenty years' temporary or unestablished service. That is a long stretch for either a temporary or an unestablished civil servant.

Mr. Randall: Are there not in the Civil Service a number of unestablished civil servants who because of lack of physical standards are taken on and will continue as unestablished staff for a number of years?

Mr. Houghton: Yes, but my hon. Friend will probably remember that there are special conditions under which those who qualify for establishment but who are rejected on medical grounds may be considered later in their career for the counting of the whole of their unestablished service in full for both gratuity and pension, so they will not suffer any handicap as a result of the postponement of their establishment. I think that the limit on the gratuity is not unreasonable. It will be our job to see that any cases which might suffer as the result of this ceiling are looked at in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill.
The next thing that the Financial Secretary referred to in regard to Clause I was the date of operation. The Bill is to be effective with regard to Clause I from 15th May this year. I regret that provision has not been made in the Bill to go further back than that. The Royal Commission recommended that changes in the scale of gratuity should take effect—I quote from the end of paragraph 751:
from a current date as regards payment but all service rendered before the date of the change should count.
All service before the date of the change does count; but the current date to which the Royal Commission was then referring was presumably the date current at the time it made its Report, which was 10th November, 1955.
Last year many of the recommendations of the Royal Commission were embodied in what were called package proposals for acceptance by the staff side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council. They were accepted and put into operation with effect from 1st July last year. It is a pity that the recommendation as regards changes in gratuities of temporary and unestablished civil servants cannot be given the same effective date. The only reason that we are dealing with this matter here and now is that this requires legislation and nothing else in the package proposals did.
I have frequently referred to the disadvantages to civil servants of having

the smallest reform or improvement in superannuation conditions made the subject of legislation. The Financial Secretary knows probably better than anyone present at the moment the difficulties of squeezing in a Bill in a crowded Session. The date 15th May, 1957, is later than we had hoped. Some temporary civil servants who have been discharged in the last two or three years no doubt feel acutely unhappy that the improved gratuities are not to apply to them.
There have been very substantial discharges from the temporary Civil Service in recent years—very large numbers have gone—and none of them has had or can have the benefit of the improvement in gratuities. Many of those civil servants had served for some time during the war and for quite a long time afterwards. They were part of the war effort and part of the post-war return to more orthodox forms of administration and staffing. So it was a matter of great disappointment to the staff associations concerned when the Government said that they were unable to concede any retrospection for the new gratuities beyond the date announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made the announcement on 15th May this year of his intention to introduce legislation.
The Clauses which deal with transfer to the Civil Service and to temporary service with the Imperial War Graves Commission remove long-standing grievances of a particular kind. In my long association with the staff interests of the Civil Service, I have always heard of the grievances—in these two groups in particular—of persons who have been left out of earlier legislation which would have removed the anomalous position in which they have been placed. We are very glad to see that those injustices and lack of foresight are now to be put right.
These were not the only matters, however, to which the Royal Commission referred in its Report relating to Civil Service superannuation. The Royal Commission was in any case restricted in the scope of its survey of superannuation arrangements. Its terms of reference provided that it had to consider
whether any changes are desirable in the framework of the existing superannuation scheme.
It was not open to it to suggest radical changes in the principles or structure of


the scheme, but it was within its terms of reference to deal with other matters. The principal other matter which was the subject of considerable discussion before the Royal Commission and which occupied some space in its Report is one not within the scope of the Bill. The Financial Secretary will not expect me to say that it ought to be within the scope of the Bill. We quite recognise that it cannot be.
Nevertheless, I am bound to mention it, or the House may be misled into thinking that this disposes of all the matters referred to in the Royal Commission's Report affecting Civil Service superannuation. It does not—and it is very likely that the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council will trouble the House later on with its view of paragraphs 737 to 747 of the Report, which deal with the reckoning in full of the unestablished service followed by the established service of the civil servant. That is another very big issue, going wider in scope and being more costly in money than the proposals contained in the Bill.
The history of that matter is described in the Report. It would be a mistake if I were not to say that the matter is still outstanding and that the House must not be surprised if it hears more of it. I think that I had better leave it at that this afternoon, because it is not within the scope of the Bill and it is not the desire of anyone concerned that there should be a moment's delay in facilitating the passage of the Bill. To attempt to enlarge its scope in the way that I have mentioned would obviously involve wider considerations, even if it were possible under the Money Resolution.
That suggests that the Bill, of itself, is welcome, and we wish to facilitate its passage into law. It makes favourable recommendations in directions which are long overdue. It does not, however, finally dispose of some of the outstanding grievances about superannuation arrangements in the Civil Service. They may require later consideration, but there is no need for us to delay the passage of the Bill in order to deal with them now.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Powell: I ask leave of the House to speak again only to thank hon. Members who have spoken on both sides for

the way in which they have received the Bill and to deaf with a few of the points and questions raised in the course of this short debate.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) referred to the date of implementation. I am sure that he is aware that the proposition embodied in the Bill was not part of the so-called package proposals which were implemented as from 1st April, 1956—I believe that the hon. Member said July, by a slip of the tongue—and, therefore, fell to be considered in the light of the recommendation of the Royal Commission which, when it said "a current date", meant a date current at the time when the change is made, which, indeed, is the only reasonable interpretation that can be attached to the words. I recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the House would have been glad if the current date, in that sense, had fallen earlier; but I do not think it can be argued that the Bill as it stands is in conflict with the recommendation of the Royal Commission.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) asked to which categories of former employees of the Imperial War Graves Commission Clause 3 will apply. It will apply only to those who entered the Civil Service of the State, that is. in this country, before 30th September, 1934. I am not aware that the problem with which Clause 3 deals has arisen in any other Commonwealth country. It arises out of our own Superannuation Acts, and I have not heard that other countries have found themselves in the difficulty from which we are now starting to extricate ourselves.
The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), who gave me some advice upon facial expressions in the House, referred to Clause I (2). That subsection is only consequential upon the general purpose of the Clause, in that, if the seven-year limit for qualification for a gratuity is being lowered to five years, so should the deemed service be reduced for the purpose of Section 41 of the 1949 Act. It would, however, be outside the scope of the Bill to consider whether the provisions of that Act should be widened as the hon. Member suggested.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) referred to the wicked word "may" in


Clause 3. I can assure him that he need have no fears on this score. The provision made for ex-employees of the Imperial War Graves Commission now stands on exactly the same footing as all other superannuation provisions of all other civil servants, which are all, alike, governed by the word "may"—so this is a risk which may reasonably be accepted.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) asked about the date of operation of Clause 2, and in answering I may as well associate with it the date of operation of Clause 3. Where a pension is already in payment at the time when the order comes into force under Clause 2—or this Measure is passed, so far as applies to Clause 3— the appropriate adjustment of the pension will be made as from that time. Therefore, it applies to people who have already retired as well as to those who will retire in future.
Where a gratuity was paid, that is to say, where the civil servant in question was not established at the time of his retirement—there may be a few such cases under Clause 2, and certainly some under Clause 3—we shall go back into the past to see what the gratuity was and make the necessary adjustment in the amount of the gratuity, subject to what is laid down in the order or in Clause 3.
The hon. Member also asked whether the whole of the service of employees of the Roehampton Hospital between 1925 and 1939 would count. So far as they were in employment during those years it will count, although, being unestablished service prior to 1949, under the present law it will count only as to half. I think that that answers the question which the hon. Member had in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Barber.]

Committee upon Tuesday, 25th June.

SUPERANNUATION [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as to gratuities payable in respect of persons employed in the civil service of the State otherwise than in an established capacity and as to the application of the Superannuation Acts to persons entering the civil service of the State after having been in other employment, it is expedient to authorise—

1. Any increase in the sums payable under any enactment out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable—
(a) to any amendment of section thirty-nine of the Superannuation Act, 1949, as respects gratuities payable in the case of persons dying, retiring or removed from their employment on or after the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven,
(b) to amendments of the Superannuation Acts in relation to persons who, after having been employed by a body or organisation the income of which was wholly or partly derived from moneys provided by Parliament have, whether before or after the passing of the said Act, been taken into the civil service of the State where, in the opinion of the Treasury, their employment by that body or organisation was of the same nature and for the same purpose as their employment in the service of the State,
(c) to any provision authorising the reckoning of service in a temporary capacity with the Imperial War Graves Commission before the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, as being for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts employment in an unestablished capacity within the meaning of section three of the Superannuation Act, 1935.

2. Any payments into the Exchequer.—[Mr.Powell.]

Resolution to be reported upon Tuesday, 25th June.

EGGS (GUARANTEED PRICES)

6.50 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move,
That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1957, dated 22nd May, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved.
This Order makes arrangements for providing guaranteed prices for eggs through the new British Egg Marketing Board. The Order replaces an existing Order, which was also made under Section 4 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, which gave authority for the Government's present support buying arrangements. The present guarantee arrangements have been in force since 1953, when rationing and price control of eggs ended, and they were interim arrangements intended to tide over the period until permanent marketing arrangements came into being. The Egg Marketing Board has been set up under the Agricultural Marketing Acts and will start exercising its marketing functions at the end of this month. New guarantee arrangements will be necessary from that time onwards, and these are provided for under this Order.
In future, as in the case of milk and wool, the guarantee will be paid to the Board and not direct to individual producers. This is essentially a machinery Order which simply lays down the procedure to be followed each year in determining what payments are due to be made to the Board to implement the guarantee. The Order itself does not fix the guaranteed prices. The guaranteed prices and the standards for eggs will be fixed, as they have been fixed up to now, each year after the Annual Price Review. The detailed financial arrangements under which the Board will administer the guarantees will be embodied in an agreement between the Ministers and the Board, which I hope will soon be signed. Copies of this agreement will later be made available in the Library of the House.
When the Egg Marketing Scheme came before the House last December I outlined the financial arrangements which we proposed to make with the Board if the Scheme were approved, and this

Order provides the authority for those arrangements. The procedure will be briefly as follows: each year after the Annual Price Review Ministers will fix the standards for eggs and the guaranteed price per dozen, and will also make an estimate of the average selling price for the coming year. The Board will then be paid a rate of subsidy which will represent the difference between the guaranteed price and the estimated selling price for each dozen eggs it buys.
This Order also provides arrangements which are designed to give the Board an incentive to get the best out of the market. I admit that these arrangements are a little complicated. If the actual selling price differs from the estimated selling price by no more than 2d. a dozen, then the Board will keep the surplus if the actual price is above the estimated price and will stand the loss up to the 2d. if the actual price turns out to be below the estimated price.
Beyond this band of 2d. on either side. any difference will be shared between the Board and the Government. For instance, if the actual price is more than 2d. a dozen below the estimate, then the Government will make up 90 per cent. of the deficiency beyond the 2d. If the actual price is more than 2d. above the estimated price, then the Board will pay back to the Government 50 per cent. of the difference above the 2d.
This year the guaranteed price of hen eggs is 4s. 1¼d. a dozen and the estimated market price is 2s. 10d. There are special provisions in Clause 10 of the Order which relate to the first year of working. These are needed because the Government will be operating under the existing arrangements for the first three months of the present year but the prices which were fixed after the Annual Price Review, to apply when the Board took over, referred to the whole year.
Consequently, the results of the operations during the first quarter of the year will have to be taken into account in determining what will be paid to the Board or to the Exchequer, as the case may be, in the risk-sharing arrangements which I have just described. The Order contains provisions to cover this point and also provides certain financial adjustments to be made at the point when the Board takes over from the Government. Thereafter, the Board will be answerable


to the producers, who voted it in with such an overwhelming majority.
The Board will buy all the hen eggs which pass through packing stations, which is far and away the bigger number of the eggs sold, and will itself fix the prices which are to be paid for the eggs to the producers. The Government will no longer fix those prices.
The Board has said that it does not intend at present to make any substantial changes in the physical channels through which eggs will be marketed. Packers will continue to operate much as they do at present, therefore, except that instead of operating as principals, as they do now, they will buy from producers as agents of the Board and the Board will fix the wholesale prices at which it will sell eggs, much in the same way as the Government fix them at present through NEDAL. The Government at present fix through NEDAL the prices at which it will sell eggs to the wholesalers.
Subject to the limitations in the financial agreement between the Board and the Government, the Board will be entirely free to use the powers which it has obtained under the Scheme to market eggs in whichever way it thinks best. The chairman of the Board has announced that it will have three main aims—to sell more eggs, to speed their journey from the farm to the shopping basket, and to encourage high quality production. I know that the House will wish the Board every success in attaining those three objectives. It is taking over a wide responsibility at a difficult time, and I am sure that it deserves our support and encouragement. I am sure, too, that it will tackle the problems with a full sense of responsibility not only to the producers but to the public at large.
We have all been concerned at the high cost of the subsidy on eggs during recent months. It was primarily that very high subsidy cost which led the Government to reduce the guaranteed price for hen eggs by 1¾d. a dozen at the last Annual Price Review. I recently felt it necessary to warn producers that, subject to the usual careful and thorough review next year, and subject to the provisions of our long-term assurances, it seemed to me that, unless there is some major change between now and next February, a further reduction in the level of the

guarantees must be expected. In present circumstances, we cannot afford any further expansion. Indeed, some reduction from the quantities which are in prospect seems to be desirable.

Sir Leslie Plummer: Would the Minister be a little more explicit and tell us what he means by a "major change"? Does he mean a major change in consumption or does he mean a major change in a decrease in production?

Mr. Amory: It might arise from both. For instance, a major change in the market price would have a bearing on the situation. Of course, it is quite likely that that would arise from a change in consumption.
I hope very much that the lower prices which have been current recently will have stimulated a higher demand. In fact, there are signs that that seems to be happening. If that went on it could affect the position considerably. Also, we shall take into consideration, as we always do, any changes in the costs of production between now and then. I wanted to cover myself, because I am not now taking a decision—that would be wholly and entirely wrong at this stage—as to what we shall do. I am only giving a warning to the industry of what, in view of the probable trend of events, the situation will require when the time comes.
Production has now expanded to a point where the most strenuous efforts must be made to encourage demand if supplies are to be absorbed without an intolerable burden of subsidy. That means a very vigorous selling policy and skilful market operations as well. The voting for the Board made it amply clear that the big majority of producers want these responsibilities to be undertaken by their own Board. The problems facing the industry mean that the Board will be confronted with a formidable challenge, but I am confident that it will give a good account of itself.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary always speak with a pleasant, engaging air of innocence which I used to think was gregarious simulation, but I am being driven to the mournful conclusion that it is genuine. They are quite innocent about agricultural problems, and


when the right hon. Gentleman strays beyond the strict limits of his brief, what he says about agriculture is most disturbing.
We are in the further difficulty this evening that we have not the agreement before us, and I want to protest about that. When we discussed the Egg Marketing Board, the then Parliamentary Secretary said:
No financial agreement could be made until a Scheme has come into being and a board has been appointed. As soon as the board has been constituted, the details of the arrangement will be settled. My right hon. Friend gave the outline. When that is done a Section 4 Order under the 1947 Agriculture Act will be brought before the House in order to implement that agreement, so that the House will have a full opportunity to debate it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 388.]
That is just what we are not having. We should have had an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman why the agreement is not before us now. He knows that on previous occasions I have taken up a similar point with him. I do not know why we should be discussing this Order tonight. Why could not we have the agreement before us so that we could discuss it properly in the context of the Order?
That is important for another reason. As the right hon. Gentleman has revealed, the results of the Government's trading operations during the first quarter of the year will have to be taken into account in determining what is due to the Board or the Ministers at the end of the year under the risk-sharing arrangement described in the memorandum which the Ministry has made available to us.
We ought to have had this information before us today. I should like to know whether there were any difficulties in the negotiations between the right hon. Gentleman and the Board. Is the Board to be placed in an impossible position this year in view of the unfortunate experiences of the Government before the Board took over? I complain that we have not this information before us. I complain that this is a breach of the undertaking given to the House by the Parliamentary Secretary when we discussed the Egg Marketing Board. We want to know whether the Board is in a fair position to carry out its responsibilities this year.
I want to know whether there are any differences of opinion between the Board and the Government as to the arrangements which are to be made for the first quarter of the present year. I realise that, with regard to the agreement generally, by carrying out a little research I can form a pretty good idea what its provisions will be, but again I point out that the Price Review White Paper shows that those provisions are subject to a quite important proviso, because the provisions in the White Paper are themselves
Subject to the terms of the financial agreement …".
I thought that the least we should have from the right hon. Gentleman would be an assurance that not only is the Board not to be prejudiced by the account that is to be taken of the first quarter of the present year but also that there will be no attempt to use the financial agreement to affect in any way the position as it appears in the White Paper.
I wish to say a few words about the first three months' experience under the present Price Review. The right hon. Gentleman has always taken the view that this was some unexpected result of unexpected climatic conditions. When I talked about the right hon. Gentleman's innocence I had this particularly in mind. When we discussed the Egg Marketing Board, I pointed out to him then that, almost certainly, difficulties would face the egg producers such as those which were facing milk producers, and I asked the right hon. Gentleman what he was doing about it. I did not even get a reply. In fact, nothing was done about it.
There are many factors which arise, and these affect the provisions of the Order. The right hon. Gentleman has referred indirectly to the question of a price policy, but I gather that he is abnegating all responsibility for that now.

Mr. Amory: Mr. Amory indicated dissent.

Mr. Willey: I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that he was, but certainly that is a matter which very much affects egg production.
I raised other questions about technology and the economics of the industry. If I had had any reply about them, I could have been satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman was concerned about them, but he was innocent of these things.


It must be realised that egg production is not easy to regulate, especially when we have practically satisfied the whole of our domestic requirements, but it is because we could anticipate an increase in egg production—one had only to look at the figures—that we expected the right hon. Gentleman to take steps to equate supply with demand. It is no use saying that domestic production is meeting our full demands at home unless we endeavour to ensure that our home consumption and production correspond.
On the question of making the adjustment affecting the first three months of the year, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we have to take account of any eggs in store. There is an ugly rumour that at the time when we were exporting eggs to Denmark we were not putting eggs into store, because the stores were already full of eggs. That seems preposterous. I should like to know whether that was so.

Mr. Amory: I do not quite understand what was preposterous.

Mr. Willey: It would be preposterous if, at the time of the flush, storage capacity was already used to the full with the previous years' eggs so that we could not use it. That is being alleged. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether, in arriving at the amount for the three months, account will be taken of eggs put in store. How many eggs were put into store, in other words, off-loaded, in the flush period?
I do not want to go into the question of the export of eggs, particularly as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is not here. The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to explain to me the difficulty he has in being with us tonight, and has asked me to convey his apologies to the right hon. Gentleman. I would merely ask the right hon. Gentleman what account will be taken of the amount of the subsidy on eggs exported when the right hon. Gentleman strikes a balance with the Egg Marketing Board for the first three months.
The right hon. Gentleman's warning is not the right way to tackle the problem of subsidy. Are we to get these warnings, months in advance of any Price Review, that there will be further reductions in the price support? I should

have thought that the problem was to keep domestic production in line as far as possible with domestic demand.

Mr. Amory: That is the object.

Mr. Willey: If that is the object, why give these warnings on the same day as the right hon. Gentleman has said that at the height of the flush it was only a question of encouraging a 1 per cent. increase in consumption? That is what he told us in Question Time.
Instead of that, we get this sledge hammer. We have seen the effect of this sort of thing before. I do not want to mention other foodstuffs in respect of which we had exactly the same approach. Instead of saying, "Let us try to deal with this problem", the only thing the right hon. Gentleman can say is, "I give you repeated warning that there will be a further reduction in the price support when we reach the next Price Review."
What effect will the new arrangements made by this Order have upon the subsidy? The right hon. Gentleman knows that the figures were worked out for 1954–55, when it was shown that if these arrangements had then operated they would have resulted in an increase of £6 million in the subsidy. It also revealed, by the way, that the Ministry's estimates were wrong by 4d. a dozen. I do not know whether that is why we have the 4d. band. What is the present estimate of the effect on the subsidy of the new arrangements?
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned what he regarded as physical channels. I gather that he is satisfied that the Egg Board has assured him that there will be no alteration in the physical channels. By that I presume that he is referring to the packing stations and the present arrangements for distribution.
Let me remind him that when we were discussing the Egg Marketing Board I pointed out that that matter had been repeatedly criticised by the Public Accounts Committee. I am not criticising the packing stations as such, but the system of the distribution of the subsidy. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have had a little more imagination and would have been able to tell us that he had devised an improvement in those arrangements. I pointed out these matters when we debated the


Egg Marketing Scheme, and I only point them out again because I still have not had a reply about any of them. They affect both the security of the producer and the liability of the taxpayer.
I would mention two or three matters which I raised in Standing Committee when we discussed the Agriculture Bill. and again about which I received no reply whatsoever from the Government Benches. These matters are germane to the present Order. This is an illustration of the operation of the assurances provided by the Agriculture Bill. The Government have anticipated the provisions of the Bill. No one complains about that, but I asked questions arising from the long-term assurances that the Government claim to have given. Incidentally, I said that the consumption of eggs had fallen over the past year or two. The Parliamentary Secretary denied that. He was good enough the other day to apologise for the right hon. Gentleman; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now apologise for the Parliamentary Secretary. He knows the figures well enough, and that there has been a decline from 1954 to 1956. I have the figures here if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to challenge them.
This is a very important matter. If the right hon. Gentleman, earlier today, was talking about increasing consumption by 1 per cent. at a particular time of the year as being the problem that we were facing, he should look to this fall in consumption to see what factors caused it. In the light of these facts he might be a little repentant and rather more optimistic.
I want to turn to specific matters which I put to the right hon. Gentleman and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary during the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to these points even yet. The first point, which seems of some importance, is that the right hon. Gentleman has again talked about a reduction of 1¾d. To reach that figure he has to take account of the feed formula. In giving the assurances, was that formula taken into regard? That point has not yet been made clear. It is clear by inference, but we might as well get it explicit, because it can affect other commodities.
The second point I raised on which I have not yet had a reply is that we have

had a change in the feed-price formula itself. Where do we get with long-term assurances if we are played about with like this? Now, in the middle of the Price Review year we are having another change, something entirely different, in the system of price support. Even if we disregard the uncertainty brought about by that major change, we have these minor changes without so much as an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.
On the major change made by this Order it was the right hon. Gentleman's case that the reduction in the price support, which has been made before the implementation of this Order, was the maximum which could be incurred under the long-term assurances. In fact it may be slightly more, but I recognise the difficulty of working in terms of currency. I gather that the position we face when we consider the present Order is that the Government have already made the maximum reduction they could make under the long-term assurances. However, when we consider the present Order, there is a dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and the National Farmers' Union. I called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to that matter when we discussed this subject.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. I think I heard the Minister say, when he was telling the House of the contents of this Order, that this was purely machinery and the actual sums involved were not relevant to this Order. Might I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, with respect, that the points the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is now putting before the House are essentially concerned with the actual amounts? Would, it, therefore, be in order to consider them?

Mr. Speaker: I think I heard the Minister make some reference in his speech to the cost of this subsidy. I do not see how I can rule out anything that the Minister considers relevant to the Order.

Mr. Willey: I am anxious not to go into any great detail on this matter. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will concede that this Order alters the method of price support. Under the provisions which were obtaining, the Govern-


ment had enforced the maximum reduction they could enforce under their long-term assurances. I said that when we come to consider the new provisions we find that there is a dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and the National Farmers' Unions. That was a point on which the National Farmers' Unions were not able to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The Unions said:
The unions and the Board regret that because in their view this figure of the estimated wholesale price is higher than production prospects warrant, it could mean that in addition to a reduction of 13/4d. in the average price, producers' returns could fall depending on the extent to which the realised price fell below 2s. 10d.
I wish to put a very important question to the right hon. Gentleman. What steps is he going to take to ensure that the return to the producer will not fall below that which was guaranteed before these new arrangements came into operation? He may be wrong and the National Farmers' Unions may be right. What steps is he going to take to implement his long-term assurances? Is he, in the first year of the operation of these assurances, going to make nonsense of them? I hope that he will deal with that point. I cannot understand why he has not referred to it as I had already raised the matter in Standing Committee.
The National Farmers' Unions conceded that this point of difference did not affect their acceptance of the Review as a whole. However, unlike the Minister, they said that these present arrangements can result in the producers getting less than they would have got if the old arrangements had continued, but the old arrangements would have enforced a maximum reduction on the producers. What steps is the Minister going to take to honour his guarantee to the producers that when we reach the end of the Review year they will not be worse off than they ought to be under the long-term assurances given by the right hon. Gentleman?
Having raised those points, which I think are very material to the view that we take of this Order and the change in the arrangements, I join with the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming the Egg Marketing Board, and wish it every success. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about encouraging a lively sales policy. I thought he might

have given a little more enheartening reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), who I thought at Question Time made a very practical suggestion about schools. Why were those steps not taken this year?
In spite of objections by hon. Members opposite, when we were in office, we conducted extensive advertising campaigns to get eggs moving in the flush periods. I do not want to say more about that tonight, except that it is enheartening that the Egg Marketing Board will do just what the right hon. Gentleman himself has failed to do. Although the difficulty has always been rather exaggerated, I join with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that the time taken for the egg to get from the producer to the consumer will be speeded.
I have raised these criticisms because I feel—this is where the right hon. Gentleman seems to be such an innocent —that the Egg Marketing Board has been given an extraordinarily difficult job, a job which is rather more difficult than it might have been. This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman has again unnecessarily aggravated this sense of insecurity. I hope that at any rate he will be able to go some way towards assuring me that he has the difficulties of producers in mind.
The least that the right hon. Gentleman can do is to give the assurance for which I have asked that at the end of the present year the producer will find he is no worse off than if the previous arrangements had continued—in other words, that he will have no dubiety in saying that the Government accept their declared responsibility with regard to their long-term assurances and are not going to hide behind the device of the changed method of price support, but will safeguard the producer against any loss in the price which has been guaranteed to them.
I hope also that the right hon. Gentleman will do what he can to assist the Egg Marketing Board and to encourage it to take the steps such as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen suggested. I am convinced, and I am sure the whole House is convinced, that there is considerable room for an increase in the consumption of eggs. As in the case of milk—these problems are not divorced—there has been a tendency for the consumption to


fall in the last few years. We should much prefer a lively, determined policy to increase the consumption of eggs, because that is the best way to deal with the difficulties experienced by producers.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Amory: The hon. Member has had to exercise his utmost ingenuity to try to cast gloom over our proceedings and to imply that in some way the policy of the Government has failed. On the contrary, in this sphere the policy of the Government has been extremely successful.
We have succeeded in promoting a very steady and spectacular expansion in the poultry section of the industry during recent years. We have succeeded in achieving a position where about 100 per cent. of the eggs we consume are home-produced and a position in which the consumer has been able to obtain eggs at extremely reasonable prices. That is a situation at which, in general, we can all rejoice.
I turn to the particular points made by the hon. Member. He asked why it has not been possible to produce the financial agreement here and now. In short, the answer is because that financial agreement has not yet been completed. It does not become necessary until the beginning of next month, but I have described the contents of the financial agreement to the House on all relevant points. There is really nothing more in the financial agreement than that.
The hon. Member asked whether we have reached agreement on the provisions to deal with the first three months of this year. The answer is "Yes." We have agreed in principle with the Egg Marketing Board that a provision shall be put into the financial agreement to deal with that period. We cannot cover all the details until we are nearer the end of the period concerned, the first three months.
The hon. Member asked whether eggs in store would be taken into consideration in that agreement. The answer is yes—that will have a bearing on the situation. They will be taken into account in the financial provisions which have to be made for the hand-over. The hon. Gentleman asked what quantity of eggs were in store this spring. The quantity

was less than in any recent years and at no time exceeded 30,000 boxes.

Mr. Willey: Why is this so? Were we exporting eggs when we could have stored them in this country? Or is it the case, as has been alleged, that the storage capacity is fully used up by the eggs previously stored?

Mr. Amory: As the hon. Gentleman knows, commercial decisions have to be taken every day in these matters about what is in the interests of future trading. I have given him the information for which he asked.
The hon. Gentleman seems to criticise me for giving a warning of probable trends in the future and the action required. Earlier he appeared to criticise me for not attempting to forecast the trend of production and the consequences. My job is to give all the guidance possible to the industry about the probable trends of developments and the actions that the Government think it likely they will have to take in the light of those developments.
This time last year I did exactly the opposite. In the case of cattle, instead of giving a warning of a probable need for a further reduction in the guaranteed price, I gave an assurance to the industry that at the next Price Review there would be an increase, and the industry was grateful for that warning. The hon. Gentleman asked why we had not notified the local education authorities, but my right hon. Friend did do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked about advertising. That is one of the reasons why we are in favour of and recommended the formation of marketing boards. We believe that such a board is in a better position than is a Government Department, even when backed with trading agencies, to deal with commercial matters such as advertising, publicity and trade development. That is one of the reasons why we are keen on this Board and were satisfied that it would be suitable. I have no doubt that the Board will be in a much better position to undertake long-term advertising programmes and developments of that kind than a Government Department. It confirms our view that Government Departments generally are not appropriately established for commercial operation.

Mr. Willey: Surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that, not having taken action, it is not an answer to say that the action will be taken by the Board which will deal with things sensibly. I am inquiring why the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt sensibly with them. When he says that a Government Department cannot indulge in this sort of advertising, I would remind him that the Ministry of Food did so most effectively and particularly with regard to eggs. The right hon. Gentleman is saying no more than, "I have fallen down on my job."

Mr. Amory: On the contrary. We carried out this operation in the Ministry of Food and since. But I believe that, in future, such work will be carried out more effectively because the Board will be a more appropriate instrument for doing it than a Government Department.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the feed formula. The change we have made there has been fully agreed with the National Farmers' Unions and will not affect the value of the guarantee at all. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the reduction we made in the last Price Review was the maximum which could be made under the provisions of our long-term assurances. The answer is that it was nearly the maximum. I fancy that under the scheme we could have gone a farthing higher.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether we could guarantee that producers would receive a guaranteed price of 4s. 1¼d. for the current year. What the producers will actually receive during the current year will depend largely on what the Board decides to pay them in cash. At the time of the Annual Review, the basis for the financial agreement had been agreed with the farmers' unions. These financial arrangements under which the Board will work and which I have described had been agreed, and the estimated market price for the year had also been announced. I think it was included in the Government's White Paper.
What the Board will be able to earn for the producers will depend on how successful it is in obtaining the best price that the market will pay. That is why we have included this band, and therefore we cannot say precisely what the sum available for the producers will be. It

may be slightly less and, equally, it may be slightly more.
I have attempted to cover all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the House will now approve the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1957, dated 22nd May, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved.

AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th May, be approved.—[Mr. Amory.]

7.37 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: We welcome this annual Order, which the Minister has formally presented to the House. I can understand why he has done it formally, because every year the Order receives a welcome from hon. Members on this side of the House and from hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, this year there are considerable alterations and I think that the Minister might have told us something about them.
The rate of subsidy for sulphate of ammonia is up by 30 per cent., and that in a single year. I wonder why that is so and why nitrate of chalk has gone up 35 per cent. over the same period. Is this due purely to an alteration in world or British prices, or is it as a result of the decision of the Minister to try to stimulate further the use of these fertilisers? As for the rest, so far as I can see the prices remain the same as last year, or at least the subsidies remain as they were in the 1956 Order.
Is the Minister satisfied that the prices being charged, which to some extent of course he is subsidising, are not pushed up unduly as a result of the operations of great trusts? I am not sure to what extent such operations are carried out. I fear, however, that rings, or perhaps "trusts" is the better word, are operating to push up prices and, to some extent, dip their hands into the taxpayers' pockets because the subsidy goes up every time the price goes up and the taxpayer has


to pay. I am not sure about these things, but I believe that it is the job of the Minister to be certain when he is bringing an Order of this nature to the House. He should make inquiries and inform hon. Members. I regard these matters as very important, bearing in mind the amount which, as the Minister said today, this subsidy is costing and the difference between the amount this year and last year which, I believe, is represented by an increase of about £6 million. I believe that is the figure which the right hon. Gentleman gave me today, and it is an important increase. I therefore hope that the Minister will tell us and will satisfy me on the questions which I have now put to him.

7.40 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: In reply to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), may I say that I hope no one will suggest that this is dipping into the taxpayers' pockets to their disadvantage, because fertilisers simply encourage better production per acre, and I am sure that even the hon. Member himself will be only too glad to encourage that.

Mr. Champion: Did not the hon. and gallant Gentleman hear me say that I welcomed this Order? Having welcomed it each year, it is obvious that I like this form of expenditure.

Major Legge-Bourke: I heard the hon. Gentleman welcome it, but I think it is unfortunate that he used a phrase which might give a completely false impression to the taxpayer as to what is in fact the object of the Order.

Mr. Champion: Nonsense.

Major Legge-Bourke: I rise only to protest once again, or to express disappointment, that potash has been left out, because if we are to do anything for British horticulture, which is most important and to the support of which we as a party on this side are fully pledged, it is very difficult to see any way of doing it except through a fertiliser subsidy for potash. It is therefore rather disappointing once again to see that the Order does not include potash. I regret it, because I believe that the monopoly in the production of potash which has been feared by the Minister in past years is now considerably less than it was. In fact, from the evidence which I have,

there are very considerable sources of supply from Israel, amongst other countries, which to some extent would compete with European production. It is most unfortunate that we have not yet found it possible to support horticulture in that way.

7.43 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): May I reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) on potash first? The reason is that our potash is all imported, and a very big proportion of it is from one cartel. The amount at present available from Israel is a very insignificant proportion of the total. At present, it would be very difficult to give a subsidy on potash fertilisers since we have little assurance that the effect would not be an immediate or subsequent increase in the price of imported potash. I should like to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it really is not true to say that horticulturists get no benefit from the other fertiliser subsidies. They are important to horticulturists, and we are quite satisfied that they are obtaining very considerable benefits from the existing subsidies.
It is also a fact that if we take the three main fertilisers—nitrogen, potash and phosphate—the proportion of potash fertiliser used, according to my advisers, is nearer the optimum than in the case of either of the other fertilisers. It is also increasing, without a subsidy, faster than either of the other two at the present time.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) raised a very relevant question, and I agree with him that I ought to have referred to it. The point he raised was that of the comparatively sharp increase in the subsidy on nitrogen, and he asked what was the reason for that. Broadly speaking, the reason is that we believe that we shall get more benefit from a still more rapid increase in 'the rate at which nitrogen fertiliser is used than in the case of either of the other two. It is very important, as the hon. Gentleman knows, for the further improvement of our grassland.
We have increased this subsidy on previous occasions, and we would have been willing to do so even more if the productive capacity had made it possible. But the increases in productive capacity


in this country are now going ahead and we thought that this year it was safe to stimulate and provide an incentive for a further improvement in consumption which, the year before, we had not thought it wise to do.
The hon. Gentleman then asked me whether I was satisfied that the fertiliser manufacturers would not recover the value of the subsidy in increased prices. We have no price control at present over the prices charged for fertilisers in this country, but we keep a close eye on them. I can say that, in general, the prices charged for fertilisers in this country compare very favourably with the prices current in the countries of Western Europe. The hon. Gentleman also knows that the Government have referred the case of the fertiliser manufacturing industry to the Monopolies Commission, which has the matter under consideration at present, but which has not yet made its report.

Question put and agreed to.

ADMIRALTY EMPLOYEE (COMPENSATION CLAIM)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

7.47 p.m.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: I want to raise the case of a constituent of mine, a Mr. William Hume, a labourer employed by the Admiralty at Her Majesty's Dockyard, at Portsmouth, since 1945, who met with an injury in December, 1951.
He was assisting a Mr. David Madden, a skilled fitter, to remove some valves from a diesel tank in the boiler room on board H.M.S. "Relentless," which was situated in the dockyard. To reach the tank, they had to walk along a catwalk below decks in the boiler room. This catwalk was a metal grille, with no lighting underneath it, but with a light about 9 feet above the catwalk and on the other side of the tank, consisting of a 60-watt lamp with a glass cover. Although the lighting was rather dim, the two men were able to walk along the catwalk without much difficulty.
Mr. Hume and Mr. Madden began work on the job, and removed the valves

which they took up to the deck to clean. Shortly after this, they returned to the tank, and, to reach it, followed the same route back along the catwalk. On the return journey, Mr. Hume walked ahead of Mr. Madden, although they were proceeding 'in the reverse order on the previous journey. It appears that while they were working on deck, another person had opened a section of the catwalk which formed a hatch cover, and which left an opening in the catwalk. Owing to the absence of lighting underneath, and perhaps the dim lighting on deck and the nature of the catwalk itself, it was not possible to see that the section had been removed, and Mr. Hume fell, feet first, a distance of 12 feet.
Mr. Hume fell heavily, knocked himself out, and was unconscious for a few minutes. He fell on his left heel and he struck his ribs. When he came round, he had aching pains in the small of his back and his legs felt weak. He has had this weakness and pain in varying degrees ever since. I should add that he reported sick straight away, and was sent to Haslar Hospital next day, and was there X-rayed. The pain then spread down both legs, and, after a month or so, he noticed that his thighs were wasting. He continued at work, although with continuous pain in his legs and back, but eventually he ceased work on 8th December, 1952, and then went absent for four mouths. Mr. Hume did not consult a solicitor at once. Like many young people, he did not realise what his rights were. If I may recall a personal incident, when I came home from the First World War, where I had been wounded and taken prisoner, I did not know, and nobody told me, although I was entitled to a pension, that I was entitled to have special shoes supplied to me by the Ministry of Pensions. The result was that for twenty years I had to buy my own, but now I have free Ministry of Pension shoes, which I am wearing now.
Mr. Hume did not see his Member of Parliament, in which case I hope that he would have received good advice, and he postponed seeing a solicitor until 1954. That consultation was about a claim for benefit under National Insurance. In October, 1954, he joined the Amalgamated Engineering Union and consulted W. H. Thompson's, his union's solicitors, on a private basis. A claim for damages against


the employers was then made on 28th October, 1954, which was within the required three years. On 27th April, 1955, W. H. Thompson were advised by the Admiralty that the Admiralty considered that it had been prejudiced by the lapse of time and intended to rely on the defence afforded by the Limitation Act.
This Act laid down a time limit of twelve months in which proceedings could be commenced against a Government Department, but in June, 1954, the Statute was amended to extend the time limit to three years. It is quite clear, however, that the twelve months' time limit had expired before a claim for damage was made, but not the later time limit of three years. On 2nd May, 1955, after the Admiralty had denied liability on the grounds that it had been prejudiced by the delay, Mr. Hume's solicitors offered to furnish the Admiralty with all the information in their possession dealing with the medical aspects and circumstances of the accident, but this offer was not accepted.
I subsequently raised the matter in the House after I had had an interview with two Ministers, at which I was accompanied by Mr. Clifford, of Messrs. Thompson. The Minister's main ground for refusing to consider any payment appeared to be that the delay had severely prejudiced the employers in two respects. They were unable to obtain reliable evidence of the circumstances of the accident—which we can produce—and it was impossible to determine, after the delay, whether or not Mr. Hume's injuries at that time were the cause of his present illness.
On 19th December, 1956, I asked a Question and I received the following reply from the then Civil Lord, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby):
As my hon. Friend is aware from correspondence which has passed between us, it has not been possible to establish that Mr. Hume's present disablement is due to the accident which took place five years ago; this is because of Mr. Hume's failure to represent his case for nearly three years. For the same reason, it has been extremely difficult to arrive at the true facts of the accident itself, though enough is known to show that the catwalk was not unlighted at the time. I am afraid that it is no longer possible at this distance of time to consider any question of compensation."—[OFFCTAL REPORT, 19th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 181.]

We are asking that we should have permission to raise a civil action before a High Court judge under common law for damages and that the Admiralty will not stand behind the three-year limit.
The Minister has had the benefit of the independent evidence of the skilled fitter, Mr. Madden, who was following Mr. Hume when he fell through the hole. I have a copy of Mr. Madden's evidence in my possession at this moment. He states quite clearly that had he been preceding, instead of following, Mr. Hume he would have fallen in the same way. A detailed statement has been shown to the Admiralty, of which I imagine it has a copy, and it is understood that an Admiralty representative also interviewed Mr. Madden. There was also available at the hospital which Mr. Hume attended full case records, notes, X-ray plates and reports of his treatment and condition, right from the time when he first attended the hospital in 1952.
I have a letter from his father, stating that Mr. Hume has also had to attend two London hospitals. The doctors who treated him took the view that although the diagnosis has been difficult it must be concluded that the muscle wasting and weakness are the direct results of the accident. Sir Hugh Griffiths has recently examined Mr. Hume on behalf of Mr. Hume's solicitors, and he also supports the view that his disability is entirely due to the accident.
All the medical and other evidence at the disposal of Mr. Hume's solicitors can be made available to the Minister, and it is felt that this evidence is sufficient to overcome any prejudice. The medical board which examined Mr. Hume on 18th February, 1957, decided that there was no loss of faculty resulting from the accident, despite the fact that up to February, 1957, he had been receiving a 40 per cent. disability pension from the Ministry. An earlier board had made an assessment of 50 per cent. in April, 1953. This award was referred to a medical appeal tribunal, which decided that Mr. Hume's disability was relevant to the accident. On this basis, Mr. Hume has now appealed and, naturally, we hope that on this evidence his appeal will succeed.
Whether or not the appeal succeeds, the main point is that if the Admiralty allows Mr. Hume to pursue the matter


under common law, justice can prevail. If Mr. Hume loses his case, well and good, but at least he will get justice, unless, of course, it should prove unnecessary for him to pursue the case in the event of the Admiralty being prepared to make him an ex gratiaoffer. There is ample evidence to show that Mr. Hume was in good health before the accident. Up to the outbreak of war he was an assistant golf professional at Portsmouth. He is now suffering from a serious disability, although entitled to be employed by the Admiralty on light work.
Mr. Hume's solicitors took the view that they would have had no hesitation in advising proceedings in this case had not the time limit expired before Mr. Hume sought legal advice. Such proceedings would have been based on allegations of an unsafe system of work, failure to provide a safe means of access, and negligence on the part of fellow employees in removing the catwalk section and failing to take any precautions to post someone at the opening or to replace the section or light it. All these things seem to show that it was not Mr. Hume's fault.
It should be borne in mind that at the time of Mr. Hume's accident, in 1951, the injured workman, although limited by statute to a period of twelve months in which to commence proceedings against a Government Department was able, if employed by a private employer, to begin proceedings within six years of an accident. This anomaly has now been rectified by legislation, and there is a period of three years in both cases. If the Admiralty feels that it cannot accept the evidence, all we ask is that it at least gives permission for an action at common law before a High Court judge.

8.0 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I first want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) upon the pertinacity with which he has pursued this case. The debate this evening is only the climax of a long series of letters, questions and interviews which he has conducted on behalf of his constituent with the most meticulous care. His persistence and energy deserve the highest praise. I would also like to thank him for the reasonable manner in which he

has dealt with the case. It is impossible for anyone to hear the story, as he has described it, without having a great deal of sympathy with Mr. Hume in his sufferings.
There are, however, two separate aspects of the case. First, there is Mr. Hume's claim to go on being paid industrial injuries disablement benefit. In this connection, it is simply a question of Mr. Hume being able to satisfy the medical appeal tribunal that the disability from which he is suffering was attributable to the accident which he sustained in H.M.S. "Relentless" in 1951. That is one aspect. The second aspect is Mr. Hume's desire to sue the Admiralty for damages for negligence. In order to succeed in this it is necessary to show not only that his present medical condition is due to the accident, but also that the accident was caused by some negligence or breach of duty on the part of the Admiralty or on the part of the Admiralty's employees.
I am afraid that I cannot say very much about the first aspect of the case. That is not only because it falls within the province of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, but also because Mr. Hume has appealed to the medical appeal tribunal against the findings of the reassessment board and the matter in this respect is, therefore, sub judice.
The question that the tribunal has to decide is precisely whether or not there is any connection between Mr. Hume's present condition and the accident. Even if he were to succeed in satisfying the tribunal, and even if he could satisfy the courts that there is a connection between the accident and his disability, that would be a long way from proving that the accident was the fault of the Admiralty.
The facts are, as my hon. Friend says, that the accident occurred in December, 1951. After the accident, Mr. Hume merely reported to the chargeman and to the dockyard surgery that he had slipped while going through the hatchway on his way down the ladder. He did not complain in any way about the state of the hatchway, about the state of the ladder or about the state of the lighting, and that seems very odd in view of what has subsequently transpired. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend stated, Mr. Hume continued to work for about a year, and it was not


until 8th December, 1952, that he was placed on the sick list. Another delay then occurred until October, 1954, when eventually Mr. Hume made a claim against the Admiralty.
To begin with, it was thought that there had been no witnesses to the accident, but in the early part of 1955 a Mr. Madden came forward, who had been engaged in the same operation as Mr. Hume. He stated that Mr. Hume had preceded him down the boiler room hatch and had fallen through an open grating, and he also stated that the lighting was normal at that time.
Apart from this statement by Mr. Madden, the Admiralty has been unable to confirm whether the grating was open or, indeed, whether the grating had anything to do with the accident. I should point out that if the grating were open it would be a hazard which should be not unfamiliar to workmen accustomed to working on ships undergoing refit. But. in fact, the evidence either one way or the other is extremely scanty, and this leads me to another aspect of the case to which my hon. Friend referred, and that is that the claim is time-barred.
At the time when the accident occurred the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions) Act, 1954, had not yet been passed. At that time, claims against the Crown made more than twelve months after the date of the cause of action were time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1939. This technical bar was often waived when sufficient evidence was available to enable a claim to be considered on its merits, but it was not waived—and I want to emphasise this point—in cases where, owing to the lapse of time, the Department was prejudiced in its defence by not being able to obtain evidence from people who would have been able to give evidence if the claim had been made earlier.
The 1954 Act, to which I have referred, extended the period from twelve months to three years, and in that period of three years proceedings must have started, though my hon. Friend seemed to think that as long as a claim had been made, that was sufficient. The object of the 1954 Act was to make sure that claimants had ample time in which to make their claims. That is why it was extended. However, it was also limited to ensure that claims would be made

within a reasonable period so that evidence could be checked. This is really the crux of the matter. I am sorry to have to harp on legal technicalities, but they seem to me to be important in this case, whether one looks at it from the point of view of the 1939 Act or of the 1954 Act.
The only evidence of negligence is that of Mr. Hume himself and of Mr. Madden, whose evidence is different now from what it was originally with regard to the lighting. I do not think that the Admiralty can be expected to accept these statements without question, and because of the delay which has occurred in making the claim the opportunity for the Admiralty to test these statements has long since passed. In fact, a claim made so long after the events have taken place is not fair to the defendant, and it was for that reason that the 1954 Act was passed.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that if it was hard to check the meagre evidence in 1954. it is even more difficult now. I can assure him that the Admiralty sympathises most deeply with Mr. Hume in his loss of earning capacity as well as in the personal suffering which he has had to endure. We should like to be able to help him, but I am afraid that the delay has been so great that the evidence is not sufficiently definite to justify the Admiralty in waiving either the 1939 Act or the 1954 Act.
I am sorry that I cannot give a reply which will satisfy my hon. Friend and his constituent. I am sure, however, that though what I have said may appear harsh, the reply which I have given is the only one which can properly be made in the circumstances of this case.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I was hoping that it would not be necessary for me to intervene in this discussion, and I very much regret the reply on this matter which makes it necessary for me to do so because of its unsatisfactory nature.
I am speaking on behalf of the union of which this man is now a member. Had he been a member at the time of the accident, there would have been no question of the Admiralty deciding whether it was liable or not. The matter would have been fought out in the courts, and it would have been settled. As far as


evidence is available, it shows that the Admiralty has not much of a case.
If the Admiralty had a good case, it appears to me that it would have been willing to go to the courts. The fact that it cannot get the evidence now would appear to be the reason why it is using the Statute of Limitations. The claim for damages was made against the employer on 28th April, 1954. Six months later the solicitors were advised by the Admiralty that nothing could be done about this because it was out of time. But the Admiralty took six months to put up this excuse so, whatever the time, the Admiralty added six months to it. That does not commend itself to me, and the argument used by the Admiralty is the kind of argument we would expect from the worst employers in the country. Good employers do not use the Statute of Limitations except in cases where there is a very gross breach of the law.
The Admiralty suggests that there is some doubt whether Mr. Madden made one statement or another. It should let it be decided in the courts. That is all we are asking. It is not a question of whether the evidence is good, bad or indifferent. All we ask is that a High Court judge shall decide whether the evidence is good or bad. The Admiralty sets itself above that and says that it will not give a judge an opportunity to determine whether or not Mr. Hume has a case. It pleads the Statute of Limitations; not the new Statute but the 1939 Statute, which has a limit of one year.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in that respect. Whichever Statute is invoked, the claim came too late. It is laid down that proceedings have to be started in a court of law within three years. The proceedings in question had not started within the three-year period.

Mr. Pargiter: That is open to very considerable doubt. The accident occurred on 13th December, 1951. The Admiralty played about with it for six months before it gave a decision pleading the Statute of Limitations. It appears that the submission of the claim to the Admiralty was well within the period of three years. The suggestion that it was outside the three-year period arose because of delay caused by the Admiralty.

Consequently, any fault in respect of a period is on the side of the Admiralty and not Mr. Hume or his solicitors.
It is said that there was an original fault on the part of Mr. Hume in that he did not make the claim at the beginning. As I have said, if he had been a member of the union then, such a claim would have been made. The rules in relation to these things are fairly well known. I am convinced that there are people in the Admiralty who know that they are on fairly weak ground in this case.
I am not at the moment so much concerned whether the case is for or against Hume. I am more concerned with the fact that the Admiralty has no right to be judge and jury in its own case and to plead the Statute of Limitations in order to be in that position. I would say that the Admiralty is probably a little more difficult about waiving the Statute of Limitations than some other Departments, but I will not deal with that now. The hon. Gentleman said that in certain circumstances the Admiralty would waive it. In this case it says it has been prejudiced in obtaining evidence because of the delay in the submission of the claim. It can plead that before a judge. It can put up whatever case it likes against the evidence which is submitted. If it wishes to say that Mr. Madden has made two different statements and wants counsel to cross-examine him, it is open to it to have that done, and then a judge will have to decide the facts of the case.
This is a most disgraceful misuse of power on the part of the Admiralty. We are not at this stage claiming that Hume may have any claim at all. Anything to do with the question of the claim for damages remains to be settled quite apart from anything which happens in regard to his industrial injuries claim against the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, for that is a separate issue. It might well be that the tribunal would turn him down and that a judge, on the evidence presented in respect of the claim for damages, would award him the case, or vice versa. It does not follow that one is tied to the other.
In spite of what the hon. Gentleman said in order to get round the issue, this is a case where the Admiralty is behaving in the traditions of the worst employers


by pleading the Statute of Limitations. Why was the Statute altered? It was because it was recognised to be unfair that Government Departments should be in a favoured position by having a one-year period for the submission of a claim as against six years in respect of a claim against a private person or employer.
The House decided that the law in that respect was bad, and altered it. It decided that there was no logical reason why a Government Department should be in a different position from a private employer. It altered the period in both cases to three years. The Admiralty now wants to go back before that, saying that at the time the accident happened the Statute provided that if the claim was not made within one year there was no liability on the Department.
I should have thought that the last thing the Admiralty would wish in such a case would be to appear to be doing less than justice. We are not asking for more than justice. There is only one way in which justice will appear to have been done in this case, and it will not be achieved by the Admiralty hiding behind the Statute of Limitation. It can only be done if the Admiralty says, "We do not accept that the case which has been made is correct or that the facts stated are necessarily correct, but will let a judge decide". That is all we are asking for.

Mr. Galbraith: If I might reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), the claim was not referred to the Admiralty until 1954 but a reply was sent by the Admiralty before the end of the year. That is one point upon which the hon. Member seems to have been wrongly informed.

Mr. Pargiter: The relevant date is surely 27th April, 1955. Was not that the date upon which Messrs. W. H. Thompson were advised by the Admiralty that it considered that it had been prejudiced by the lapse of time and that it intended to rely upon the defence afforded by the Statute of Limitations?

Mr. Galbraith: The advice that I have is that the Admiralty replied before the end of 1954.

Mr. Pargiter: Could we be told the date of the reply?

Mr. Galbraith: I am afraid I have not that information with me. The claim

was nearly two years out of time under the arrangements which were in force under the 1939 Act. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's impression, it was also out of date under the 1954 Act, under which proceedings—it is not merely a question of an intimation that a claim is pending—must have begun within the stated period. So that under both Acts—

Mr. Pargiter: The case is full of technicalities, but not full of justice.

Mr. Galbraith: I will come to the justice in a minute. I am merely trying to deal with one or two points as we go along. Another point which the hon. Member made was that this is a technicality. He asked, why should we not let a high court judge decide the question? But what question? The law now says that after three years there is no question. The hon. Member is being most unreasonable. If he or anybody else had suffered an accident and thought that the lighting was not proper or that there was a trap of some sort, he would have complained long before that period. I know that I would have complained, and I think that the hon. Member would have complained if he thought that there was any ground for complaint. In fact, this long period was allowed to elapse and Parliament deliberately passed this Act—

Mr. Pargiter: Mr. Pargiterrose—

Mr. Galbraith: If I am to be interrupted the whole time, it will be very difficult to develop an argument. I will give way later.
Parliament deliberately passed this Act in order to help claimants, but equally in order not to prejudice Departments, because, obviously, if there is no limit, a man who is injured can wait such a long time that it is impossible to produce proof to refute the case that he is trying to put forward. There will always be instances, even if the period is six years and if the case is presented after seven years, in which the hon. Member may-say that the Admiralty is being grossly unfair.
We should abide by the legislation produced as recently as 1954 fixing the period at three years. I can assure the hon. Member that if there were any way of checking the evidence, the Admiralty would be only too delighted to do so to


help Mr. Hume. But, in fact, there is none. If this case is accepted, there is no proof that other cases of the same sort will not be brought, and that would clearly not be in the best public interest.

Mr. Pargiter: It is perfectly clear that this man did not make a claim at the right time. He had no one to advise him. He joined a trade union and was then asked from what he was suffering and what were the facts. As soon as the facts were known, the matter was placed in the hands of reputable solicitors who immediately proceeded with all due diligence. I am prepared to agree that ignorance is not a defence in law, but we do not expect that rule to be rigidly applied to a fitter's mate who is an unskilled worker. There are many cases which ought to go to common law, and which do not go because of ignorance, but the fact that he was advised late to submit his claim— and I am prepared to admit that—is surely not one on which the Admiralty wants to rely.

Mr. Galbraith: It is not that the Admiralty wants to rely on this Act, but there comes a time when it is ridiculous for an appeal to be made, and I submit that that time had come when Mr. Hume made his appeal. As I have said, if instead of being three years the period had been six years, I can still imagine the

hon. Member making exactly the same speech and saying how unreasonable the Admiralty was. There comes a time when it is quite impossible to check evidence. Mr. Hume's evidence was altered in the course of proceedings in the court. Mr. Madden said one thing at one time and another later. At one time he was going down the ladder and the next moment he was going up. Those are possibly details, but they show that, when a long period has passed, it is extremely difficult to find the facts.
It is for that reason, not because the Admiralty is hard-hearted or does not want to help Mr. Hume, but simply because it is impossible at this distance from the time the accident took place to substantiate any of the facts which Mr. Hume wishes to prove, that, I am extremely sorry to say, I must adhere to the decision which has been given already.

Mr. Pargiter: Has this reached a quite impossible stage?

Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry to have to inform the hon. Member that that is the case.

Mr. Pargiter: I can only hope that some way will be found to deal with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eight o'clock.